HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 42-05 DublinRchWest EIR
RESOLUTION NO. 42 - 05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
. * . * * ~ . * . * * . * * * * . ~ * * . * . . * ** . * * . *
CERTIFYING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
ADOPTING MITIGATION FINDINGS, FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MmGATlON MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH WEST PROJECT
P A 02-028
WHEREAS, James Tong submitted applications for future development of approximately 1,064
residences, a Neighborhood Park, and Open Space on an approximately 184 acre site located on the west
side of Tassajara Road, east of Parks RFT A, south of the Alameda/Contra Costa county line, and north of
the existing city limit line. The submittal includes applications to annex three properties totaling
approximately 189 acres to the City of Dublin and to DSRSD; to amend the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to replace a 9.7 acre school site with Medium High Density Residential, to replace a
Neighborhood Commercial designation with Open Space, to prezone the site to PD-Planned
Development and adopt a related Stage I Development Plan. The applications are collectively known as
the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project site contains three properties, the 184 acre Dublin Ranch West site,
previously known as Wallis Ranch; the 1.6 acre Bragg parcel; and the 3.2 acre Sperfslage parcel; and
WHEREAS, the project site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning fiamework for future
development of the area. In connection with this approval, the City certified a program EIR pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH: 91103064, Resolution 51-93, and Addendum dated August 22,
1994, hereafter "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "program EIR") that is available for review in the Planning
Department and is incorporated herein by reference. The program ErR was integral to the planning
process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives, and
areawide mitigation measures for developing Eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin ElR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and
related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation findings and a Mitigation
Monitoring Program (Resolution 53-93), which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to
apply to development in Eastern Dublin including the Dublin Ranch West Project; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potentially significant environmental impacts
that could not be avoided by mitigation and for which the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for the Dublin Ranch West Project consistent with
CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 and determined that a supplement to theEastem Dublin EIR
was required in order to analyze substantial changes in circumstances and new information that could
result in new or potentially more severe significant impacts than identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation dated February 14, 2003 was circulated with the Initial
Study to public agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the supplemental
EIR; and
1
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study and responses to the Notice of Preparation, the City
prepared a Draft Supplemental EIR dated November 2004 (SCH No. 2003022082) which reflected the
independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental effects of the Project. The Draft
Supplemental EIR was circulated for the required 45 day public review period, rrom November 19, 2004
to January 3, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the City received five comment letters on the project during the public review
period and two letters after the public review period. The City prepared a Final Supplemental EIR dated
February 2005 containing written responses to all comments received during the public review period,
and to the comment letters received after the public review period, which responses provide the City's good
faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised by the comments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed a staff report, the Draft and Final Supplemental
EIRs, and all written and oral testimony submitted to them, at a noticed public hearing on February 22,
2005 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, and based on the record before it, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 05-18 (incorporated herein by reference) recommending certification of
the Supplemental EIR with revision to Response 3.2 in the Final SEIR document; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission recommendation, a City
Council staff report analyzing the EIR and the Project (incorporated herein by reference), the Draft and
Final Supplemental ErRs, and all written and oral testimony, at a noticed public hearing on March 15,
2005, at which time a11 interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs reflect the City's independent judgment and
analysis on the potential for environmental impacts, and constitute the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report for the Dublin Ranch West Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project would have significant effects on the environment, most of which can be
substantially reduced through mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the Project must include
mitigation findings as set forth in attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, some of the significant effects cannot be lessened to a level ofless than significant;
therefore, approval of the Project must include findings regarding alternatives as set forth in attacbed
Exhibit B, and must include a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit C;
and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan, as required by CEQA, is contained in attached
Exhibit D; and
WHEREAS, the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs are separately bound documents,
incorporated herein by reference, and are available for review in the City planning department, file P A 02-
028. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for
the Dublin Ranch West project is the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic
Plaza, Dublin CA 94568, attn: Mike Porto.
NOW,1HEREFORF..BEITRFSOLVlDChaf1he foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part
of this resolution.
2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council certifies the following.
A. The written response to comment 3.2 in the Final Supplemental Environmental Report document is
hereby revised upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission to read as follows.
RevisedResponse: Based upon discussions between the East Bay Regional Park District staff, City of
Dublin staff and the applicant for development of the Dublin Ranch West project, it was understood
that the Park District supported a change to show the Regional Trail along the Tassajara Creek
corridor, which would be consistent with the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Mitigation Measure
3.3/16.0 contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR reuuires the provision of a Class I paved bicvcle
and nedestrian Dath parallel to Tassaiara Creek
The Park District nresentlv controls an easement for a future trail linkim!: the area south of the Dublin
Ranch West nroiect area with Mount Diablo to the north. The existinl!: easement traverses moderate to
stet1P topogn¡phy on land owned bv Parks RFT A and is not located on the Dublin Ranch West proiect
~.im.
The Stage I Development Plan for the Dublin Ranch West oroject (reference DSEIR Exhibit II)
indicates that recreational trails are proposed generallv parallel to and on both sides of Tassaiara
Creek The project developer has indicated a willingness to ensure that either one of the orooosed
trails would be desil!:ned to be consistent with East Pav Re¡¡ional Park District trail standards and
could be connected to existing Park District trails. In addition. the Development Plan includes
nronosed trail linkages to the existißl/: Park District trail easement to the west
In any event. the proposed Dublin Ranch West project does not change the existing Park District
regional trail location off of the proiect site. The Stage 1 Development Plan for the Dublin Ranch
West proiect offers a fUeater degree of flexibility to the District to nrovide an alternative location for
the nronosed regional trail aqjacent and parallel to Tassaiara Creek. Trail locations adiacent to
Tassaiara Creek could also be more conducive to visitor use. since topolP"anhv adiacent to the Creek is
flatter.
The City of Dublin believes the 1993 Eastern Dublin ElR adequately addressed the potential impacts
of future trails adjacent to Tassajara Creek as shown in Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City has not
identified any specific impacts with the requested land use change that would replace existing open
space uses with Low Density Residential uses further to the west on the Dublin Ranch West propertY.
B, The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Project has been completed in compliance with
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
C. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and the Eastern Dublin EIR were presented to the
City Council who reviewed and considered the information contained therein prior to approving the
Project.
D. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis
on the potential for environmental effects of the Dublin Ranch West Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council adopts the mitigation findings set
forth in Exhibit A, the findings regarding alternatives set forth in Exhibit B, the Statement of Overriding
Considerations set forth in Exhibit C, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in Exhibit D,
which exhibits A, B, C and D are incorporated herein by reference.
3
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of March, 2005 by the following vote:
A YES: Couneilmembers Hildenbrand, MeCormiek, Oravetz and Mayor Loekhart
NOES: None
ABSENT: Couneilmember Zlka
ABSTAIN: None
ATTESTdk cj( g cL
City Clerk ~ \..
K'IG{3-15-05læso 42.()5 EIR Dublin Ræd1 West (Item 6.3)
O;\PJ\fI\2OIm)2-028 Dublin _ Wost\Cily CounciJ\Reso EIR C<rt.DOC
4
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and
15163(e), the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potential for
significant supplemental environmental impacts from the Dublin Ranch West project and means for
mitigating those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings
are summarized rather than set forth in full, The text of the Draft and Final Supplemental EIRs
(SEIRs) should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. Findings
pursuant to section 21081 (c) relating to Project alternatives are made in Exhibit S.
Supplemental Impact AQ·1: Construction activities would have the potential to cause
nuisance related to the emission of dust and PM10. (DSEIR p. 43.)
SM-AQ-1. In addition to Mitigation Measure MM 3.11/1.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR, require
construction contractors to water or cover construction materials; to sweep daily all paved access
roads, parking and staging areas; to install sandbags or other erosion control measures. (DSEIR p.
43).
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Findina. The additional construction controls will ensure that dust and silt are
prevented from blowing or running offsite.
Supplemental Impacts AQ.2, AQ·3j Project Emission increase that would exceed the
BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors on project and cumulative levels.
(DSEIR pp. 44-45.)
SM-AQ-2. In addition to Mitigation Measures MM 3.11/5.0-11.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR, require
coordination with LA VT A for eventual extension of transit service; provide bicycle land, paths,
sidewalks, connected to community-wide network; consider shuttle service to regional transit
system; consider providing satellite telecommute center; provide interconnected street network.
(DSEIR pp. 44-45.)
Findino. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project. However,
even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the projecl
alternatives identified in the final SEIR; therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must
be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findino. The Eastern Dublin mitigations and the supplemental mitigation will reduce
the emissions generated by the project by providing transit and other facilities for alternatives to
automobile use, but not by the 30% necessary to be below SAAQMD thresholds.
Supplemental Impact 810-1: Impacts to California tiger salamander. (DSEIR pp. 63-64.)
735666-1
1
SM BIO- 1. Prepare a CTS management plan prior to project construction activities that shall
include installation of a herpetological fence around the entire development footprint, a
maintenance schedule for the fencing, and a salvage plan for adequately relocating CTS
individuals into permanently preserved suitable aestivation habitat. (FSEIR p. 3.)
SM BI0-2. Install a herpetological fence around the entire development footprint following
construction activities to prevent movement of CTS into the development area. (FSEIR pp. 3.-4.)
SM BIO--4. Acquire and preserve suitable CTS aestivation habitat at a 1:1 ratio and construct a
breeding pond, or otheras required by USFWS or CDFG. (FSEIR p. 4.)
SM BI0-5. Prepare an Open Space Management Plan for preserved upland habitats, private open
space and off-site preserved replacement habitat prior to construction activities. The Plan shall
include strategies for grassland habitat management, shall address management of habitat for
other special status species and shall include protection measures and habitat monitoring and
reporting. (DSEiR p. 65.)
SM BI0-6. A qualified biologist shall monitor construction activities and may suspend such
activities to ensure protective measures are properiy implemented and maintained. (DSEIR p. 65.)
SM BI0-7. During initial ground disturbing activities, provide construction employees with
educational training program on sensitive species identification and habitat, and project mitigation
measures, (FSEIR p. 4.)
Findino. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Findino. The mitigation measures provide a comprehensive program for avoiding
harm to CTS by safely relocating individuals and preventing their retum to the construction and
development area, by providing and managing adequate preserved and replacement habitat on-
and off-sile, and by providing qualified biologist monitoring and education during construction so
that the species will be identified and the protective measures implemented.
Supplemental Impact 810·2. Impacts to California red·legged frog. (DSEIR p. 66.)
SM-BI0-2. 5. 6, 7. As described above
SM-BID-B. Acquire and preserve suitable CRLF upland habitat at a 1.5:1 ratio. (DSEIR pp. 66-67.)
SM-BI0-9. Prior to construction of bridges, map CRLF breeding habitat, construction and laydown
areas, and temporary fill areas in Tassajara Creek; conduct preconstruction surveys and
movelrelocate any CRLF or CTS as authorized by a biological opinion or other appropriate permit;
fence construction areas to prevent CRLF and CTS movement in these areas, and confine
construction activities to the fenced areas. (FSEIR pp. 4-5 re: (a), DSEIR p. 67 re: (b).)
SM-BI0-10. Grading activities should occur during dry season as practicable. (DSEIR p. 67,)
735666-1
2
Findino. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Findino. The mitigation measures provide a comprehensive program for avoiding
harm to CRLF by identifying any individuals in construction areas; safely relocating them and
preventing their return to the construction and development area; and providing qualified biologist
monitoring during construction so that the species will be identified and the protective measures
implemented.
Supplemental Impact 810·3. Impacts to breeding birds. (DSEIR pp. 67-68.)
SM-BIO-S. 6. 7. As described above.
SM-BIO-II. Conduct special status breeding bird surveys prior to any tree removal or ground
disturbance, and prohibit construction activities within specified buffers until young birds have
fledged and/or moved out of the nest. (F8EIR p. 5.)
8M-BIO-12. Conduct vegetation and tree removal outside of breeding period as much as
practicable. (D8EIR p. 68.)
Findino. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Findino. The mitigation measures provide surveys and construction buffers to ensure
that breeding birds will not be harmed by construction activity.
Supplemental Impact 810-4. Impacts to bat species. (DSEIR p. 68.)
8M-BIO-S, 6. 7. As described above
8M-BID-13. Survey potential roosting habitat prior to any disturbance and exclude bats from those
locations prior to habitat removal. (DSEIR p. 69.)
Findino. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the 8EIR.
Rationale for Findino. The mitigation measures provide surveys and species exclusion to ensure
that roosts are not destroyed when being used by roosting special status bats.
Supplemental Impact BI0-5. Impacts to Burrowing Owl. (DSEIR p. 69.)
SM-BID-5. 6. 7. As described above.
8M-BID- 14. Conduct pre-construction surveys; remove burrows if outside nesting season;
maintain buffers around occupied burrows, and around active nesting sites; provide replacement
burrows at a 2: 1 ratio; provide replacement habitat at a minimum of 6.5 acres of habitat per pair or
735666-1
3
unpaired resident owl; prepare burrow and habitat creation, maintenance, reporting and monitoring
plan. (DSEIR pp, 69-70,)
Findino, Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Findino. The mitigation measures avoid direct loss of or harm to individual owls by
providing construction buffers around occupied habitat or nests. The mitigations provide
permanently protected replacement habitat for habitat that is lost through development of the
project.
Supplemental Impact 810·6. Loss of Congdon's Tarplant. (FSEIR p. 5.)
SM-BIO-5. 6. 7. As described above.
SM-BIO-15, Establish and manage 0.63 acres of habitat in the Tassajara Creek Management
Zone for Congdon's tarplant and implement specified mitigation and monitoring plan, including
secure funding source for implementation and long term maintenance. (FSEIR pp. 5-6,)
Findino, Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Findina. The mitigation measures provide permanently protected replacement habitat
for lost tarplant.
Supplemental Impact 810-7. Loss of riparian vegetation. (DSEIR p. 71.)
SM-BIO-5.6. As described above,
SM-BIO-16. Replace removed habitat at a 3:1 ratio, or restore damaged riparian habitat. Develop
and implement a Riparian Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to fully compensate for impacts to
riparian habitat, including any Heritage Trees. The Plan shall include mitigation design and
planting, maintenance, funding and monitoring details, and shall include permanent preservation.
(DSEIR p. 71.)
SM-BIO-17. Prepare a Tree Removal and Preservation Plan where grading is proposed within tree
driplines. The Plan shall include detailed recommendations for tree removal and preservation,
including prolective fencing. Delineate all removed or protected trees on project grading plans.
(DSEIR pp. 71-72.)
Findino, Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Findina. The mitigation measures ensure that any lost riparian habitat will be
replaced and that damaged habitat will be repaired, with the replaced or repaired habitat
permanently preserved and protected. The mitigation measures also ensure that any lost heritage
trees will be replaced and that preserved trees will be protected during construction grading.
735666-1
4
Supplemental Impact BI0-8. Temporary los$ of aquatic habitat. (DSEIR p, 72.)
SM-BIC-6. As described above,
SM-BIO-18. Develop and implement a Restoration Plan identifying measures to avoid and
minimize adverse effects to aquatic resources, including measures such as temporary silt fencing,
controlling flowing water, timing bridge construction activities during the dry season, and other
measures as specified. The Plan shall also include contingency measures and a secure funding
source for implementation and long-term maintenance and monitoring. (DSEIR pp. 72-73.)
Findina, Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Findina. The mitigation measures ensure that any temporarily filled aquatic habitat
will be restored to pre-Project conditions following completion of bridge construction.
Supplemental Impact TRA-2: Impacts to study Intersections under Buildout conditions
(Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road, DSEIR p. 107), (DSEIR pp. 103-107.)
Mitiaation. No feasible mitigations are identified in the SEIR.
Findina. Even with mitigations adopted through the Eastern Dublin EIR, unacceptable operations
at this intersection will not be avoided or substantially lessened, and no feasible mitigations are
identified In the SEIR. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final SEIR; therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the Project.
Rationale for Findina. Mitigation measures for roadway improvements were adopted with the
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Dublin Ranch West project is required to implement all applicable
mitigations from the prior approvals, including fair share payments for cumulative impacts as
further described in the DSEIR. No supplemental measures are available to further reduce these
impacts, therefore the supplemental impact remains significant and unavoidable
Supplemental Impact TRA-4: Impacts on Tassajara Roadway segments. (DSEIR pp. 109-
110.)
SM-TRA-1. Widen Tassajara Road to four lanes between North Dublin Ranch Drive and Project
Northern Access. (DSEIR p. 110.)
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Findina. Widening Tassajara Road provides sufficient roadway to accommodate
project and buildout traffic.
Supplemental Impact TRA-5. Potential traffic safety impacts. (DSEIR p. 110.)
735666-1
5
SM-TRA-2. Provide specified traffic improvements, including signals, right and left turn lanes and
pockets. (DSEIRpp, 110-111,)
Findinq. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Findinq, Implementing the identified improvements will provide safe access between
the project and Tassajara Road.
Supplemental Impact PARK·1. Inconsistency with the City of Dublin General Plan, Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, and Park and Recreation Master Plan regarding provision of park
acreage. (DSEIR p. 135,)
SM-P ARK-1 , Revise the project to provide an additional 1.9 acres of Neighborhood Park land use
designation; or pay in-lieu fees to compensate for the loss of 1.9 acres of Neighborhood Park land.
(FSEIR pp. 6-7.)
Findina. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant supplemental effect identified in the SEI R.
Rationale for Findina. The mitigation measure insures that sufficient total parkland will be provided
consistent with applicable plans.
735666-1
6
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified four alternatives: No Project, Reduced Planning Area, Reduced
Land Use Intensities and No Development. The City Council found the No Project, Reduced Land
Use Intensities and No Development alternatives infeasible and then approved a modification of
the Reduced Planning Area alternative, The Supplemental EIR updates the analysis of the No
Project Alternative; it also identifies and analyzes alternatives to develop the site under the existing
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and to develop the site with a revised
Neighborhood Park location. These findings are for the alternatives as analyzed in Chapter 5,0 of
the DSEIR. The City Council considered the three alternatives identified and described in the
Supplemental EIR and finds them to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other
considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA section 21002.
Alternative 1: No Project (DSEIR pp. 138-139.)
Findinq: Infeasible. Under this alternative, no development would occur on the project sile,
although the Tassajara Creek Conservation Area would be implemented since it is a required
mitigation for loss of wetlands and habitat elsewhere in Eastern Dublin. This alternative would
avoid the project's significant air quality and traffic impacts since it would avoid the new traffic trips
generated with the proposed development. This altemative would not, however, achieve any of the
project objectives, including implementation of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
which anticipate annexation and development of the site,
Alternative 2: Reorganization and Development Under Existing General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. (DSEIR pp. 139-141.)
Findinq: Infeasible. This alternative would include annexation to the City and DSRSD, but would
also include Neighborhood Commercial uses and the elementary school site. This alternative does
not avoid the project's significant air quality or traffic impacts. This alternative would generally
implement the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to the extent these plans anticipate
annexation and development of the site, The alternative would not, however, meet the project
objectives to refine land use designations to protect T assajara Creek and to consider alternative
uses for the elementary school site which is no longer needed by the school district.
Alternative 3: Reorganization and Development of Dublin Ranch West with Revised
Neighborhood Park location. (DSEIR pp. 141-143, FSEIR p, 7.)
Findino: Feasible but does not avoid the proiect's sionificant impacts and would reouire qeneral
and specific plan amendments. This alternative would be similar to the project, including the same
uses and number of dwelling units; however the proposed Neighborhood Park would be relocated
to the southerly portion of the property along either side of T assajara Creed and residences would
be buiit in the current park location, The alternative would generally implement the General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to the extent these plans anticipate annexation and development
of the site, but the location of land use designations would need to be amended. This altemative
735668-1
1
would not avoid the project's significant air quality or traffic impacts and thus, consistent with CEQA
section 21002, need not be further considered.
735668-1
2
EXHIBIT C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993,) The City Council
carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through
approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City
Council is currently considering the Dublin Ranch West project. The project proposes a residential
development on the west side of Tassajara Road, north of the existing city limits generally to the
county line. The City prepared a Supplemental EIR for the Dublin Ranch West project which
identified supplemental impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant. The Supplemental
EIR also identified supplemental Air Quality and Traffic impacts that could not be mitigated to less
than significant.
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use
approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council
must adopt new overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that
apply to the Dublin Ranch West project.1 The City Council must also adopt overriding
considerations for the supplemental impacts identified in the Supplemental EIR as significant and
unavoidable. The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Supplemental EIR will be substantially lessened by
mitigation measures adopted with the original Eastern Dublin approvals and by the environmental
protection measures adopted through the Dublin Ranch West approvals, to be implemented with
the development of the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the
implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified
in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR. The City Council
specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the
project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social,
environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the project.
2. Unavoidable Sianificant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following
unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastem Dublin EIR for future
development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Dublin Ranch West project.
Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts
3.8/B; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. Although development has occurred south
of the project area, the site is largely undeveloped open space land. Future development of the
Dublin Ranch West site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land.
1 ".. .public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the
later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis originaL)f;ommunities for a
Better Environment v. California ResQ!,Jrce§_Aaencv 103 CaLApp. 4th 98. _ (2002).
735669-1
1
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/8, 3.3Æ. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts: While
city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned improvements, transportation
demand management, the 1·580 Smart Corridor program and other similar measures, mainline
freeway impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastem Dublin EIR.
Future development on the Dublin Ranch West site will generate less traffic than anticipated in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, but will still incrementally contribute to the unavoidabie freeway impacts.
Traffic and Circulation impacts 3,3/1, 3.3/M. Santa Rita Roadll-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin
Boulevard Impacts: The Dublin Ranch West project will be required to implement all applicable
adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the City's TIF program; however
even with mitigation these impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable,as anticipated in the
Eastern Dublin EIR,
Community Services and Faciiities Impact 3,4/S, Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural
Resources and Sewer, Water; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5IF, H, U. increases in Energy Usage
Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution System: Future
development of the Dublin Ranch West project will contribute to increased energy consumption.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.618. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects: Even
with seismic design, future development of the Dublin Ranch West project could be subject to
damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning area.
Air Quality Impacts 3. 11/A, e, C, and E. Future development of the Dublin Ranch West project will
contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary
source emissions.
3. Unavoidable SIClnlflcant Adverse Impacts from the Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR.
The following unavoidable significant supplemental environmental impacts were identified in the
Supplemental EIR for the Dublin Ranch West project.
Supplemental Impacts AQ-2, AQ-3. Project emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD
significance thresholds for ozone precursors on project and cumulative levels. Even with
implementation of the previously adopted mitigation measures and the additional mitigation
measures in the Supplemental EIR, project and cumulative precursor emissions will exceed
BAAQMD thresholds.
Supplamantallmpact TRA-2. Impacts to study intersections under Buildout conditions (Dublin
BoulevardlDougherty Road), Even with implementation of the previously adopted mitigation
measures, including contribution to intersection improvements through the TIF program, the project
will contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts at this intersection under buildout conditions.
4. OverridinQ Considerations. The City Council previously baianced the benefits of the Eastern
Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts
that apply to future development on the Dublin Ranch West site as well as the supplemental
unavoidabie impacts identified in the Supplemental EIR, against its benefits, and hereby
735669-1
2
determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Dublin Ranch
West project as further set forth below.
The project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive
framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals, The modifications to the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provide important protections to Tassajara Creek and are
more reasonable and protective designations for sensitive creek areas, The project will provide
over 1,000 units of needed housing with diverse densities and building types, as well as
maintaining open space on the site, Redesignation of the elementary school site will increase the
city's supply of housing, and is a reasonable alternate use for a site no longer needed by the
school district. Development of the site will also provide construction employment opportunities for
Dublin residents.
735669-1
3
:'
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
lntrod uction.............................................................................··.········· 2
Clarifications and Modifications to the DEIR......................................... 2
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters ................................................... 7
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses........................................ 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Introduction
A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSErR) dated November 2004
was prepared for this Project and distributed for public review in November 2004
through January 2005. The proposed Project involves consideration of an Amendment
to the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan, annexation to the City of Dublin
and the Dublin San Ramon Services District, prezoning of the Project area, a
preannexation agreement and a Stage 1 Planned Development Plan for the Dublin
Ranch West Project located on the west side of Tassajara Road, east of Parks RFTA,
north of existing City of Dublin limits and south of the Alameda County limit line. The
Project site consists of approximately 190 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of
Alameda County. A full description of the proposed Project is contained in the DSEffi
document.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA
Guidelines, after completion of the Draft ErR, lead agencies are required to consult with
and obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having jurisdiction by
law over elements of the Project and to provide the general public with an opportunity
to comment on the DSErR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to substantive
comments on environmental issues raised during the EIR review period.
As the lead agency for this Project, the City of Dublin held a 45-day public review
period between November 19, 2004 and January 3, 2005.
This Comments and Responses document augments the DSEIR and, together with the
DSEIR, comprise the Final Supplemental Effi (FSEIR) for this Project. This Comments
and Responses document contains all public comments received during the 45-day
public review process regarding the DSEffi and responses to those comments. Included
within the document is an annotated copy of each comment letter, identifying specific
comments, followed by a response to that comment.
The FSEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to infonnation presented in
the DSEIR as well as revisions to the proposed Project.
Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR
The following clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR are incorporated by
reference into the DSEIR document.
1. On page 14, "9.7" is replaced with "3.7."
2. On page 18 (Utility Services), the word "westerly" is replaced with
"easterly."
3. On page 56, the text of the DSEIR is amended to read as follows in two places
on this page:
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 2
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"In addition, HTH relocated a number of CRLF from elsewhere an the
Dublin Ranch 1Nest site into Tassajara Creek, in anticipation of management
as part of the Tassajara Creek Management Zone."
"Since approval of the 1993 Eastem Dublin EIR, the California tiger
salamander has been listed as threatened and critical habitat has been
desigRated proposed. ... All of the Project area to the west of Tassajara Creek
is within proposed critical habitat DIÙt 18 of the Central Valley Region."
4. On page 60, the impact bullet is revised to read as follows:
"Substantially-Rœduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered,
rare or threatened species;"
5. Page 64, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-l is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"A CTS man~ement plan shall be developed by the Project proponents, and
approved by I" City of Dublin in consultation with CDFG and the USFWS,
prior to construction activities. This measure shall also apply to construction
of recreational trails in preserved areas. The Plan will detail how crs will be
managed before and during construction activities and will include the
following:
a) Installation of a temporary herpetological fence prior to any ground
disturbance around the entire development footprint, which shall
prevent CTS from entering the construction site and shall remain until
the permanent fence or barrier is installed. The existin¡;- ar tRe eliITent
one-way barrier, if approved by the USFWS. is a functioIÙng
temporary barrier: however, it is not located around the entire
development footprint. iG c)(tended am! a 3 3ra¥cd for use BY 1;r.e
U6PW¡;¡ (SMM BIa 2). A maintenance schedule shall be included for
this fencing.
b) A salvage trapping ana. relocation plan that details how aestivating
CTS individuals will be adequately relocated from the development
footprint and into permanently preserved suitable aestivation habitat.
Although the existing one-way exclusion barrier will allow migrating
breeding adults to exit the project area. non-breeding adults and
juveniles may not migrate to potential breeding- sites for one or more
years. Salvage of these individuals should be accelerated by
installation of trap arrays near burrow concentrations."
6. On page 64, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 is revised as follows:
"A permanent herpetological fence or barrier shall be installed around the
entire development footprint following construction activities to prevent
movement of CTS into the development area. Such fencing shall be designed
to allow for movement of larger terrestrial wildlife species, but shall preclude
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 3
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CTS from dimbing the fence. t.,\rith l]ð)'lY¡;; iI '1 '1Feval, the eRe way Barrier
currently in '1lacc may be e)(tended te HU:et this mitigatien reElHircfficnt."
7. Page 64, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 is deleted.
8. On page 64, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIQ-4 is revised as follows:
"To compensate for the permanent loss of approximately 97.2 HG- acres of
CTS aestivation habitat, and ensure the opportunity exists for recovet:Y of this
cies within rand Liverm as of Ala un
e Project proponent will acquire and preserve in perpetuity suitable CTS
aestivation habitat at a 1:1 ratio adjacent to preserved, occupied CTS breeding
and aestivation habitat and construct a breeding pond, or as required by the
USFWS and CDFG. The mitigation aestivation habitat shall be located in the
Amador and Livermore Valley area as dose as is practicable. and as approved
by the USFWS or CDFG, and shall exhibit similar characteristics to the habitat
lost.
In selecting off-site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving
one large block of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved
areas to existing open space and other high quality habitat, and exduding or
limiting public use within preserved areas. Land selected for mitigation shall
be permanently preserved through use of a conservation easement or similar
method, approved by the City of Dublin in consultation with the USFWS or
CDFG, and obtained prior to the issuance of any construction permits."
9. On page 65, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIo-7 is revised as follows:
"During initial grollild disturbing activities. .'\M '1reject construction
employees shall receive an educational training program that indudes
information on sensitive spedes identification and their potential habitat,
approved mitigation measures for the project, and actions employees should
take if a sensitive species is encountered. This measure shall also apply to
construction of recreational trails in preserved areas."
10. Page 67, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-9 is revised as follows:
"a) Prior to construction of the proposed bridges, a map shall be prepared
to delineate CRLF breeding habitat, construction and laydown areas,
and areas of proposed temporary fill within Tassajara Creek. Pre-
construction surveys within these areas shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist (as approved by the City) with appropriate
authorization to handle CRLF. If CRLF or CTS are found within the
construction areas (or otl-.cr sensitive w:blàlife s '1cdes), they shall be
immediately moved to undisturbed, preserved portions of Tassajara
Creek if authorized in a Biological Opinion or other pennit issued by
the USFWS for the Project. Construction, laydown, and temporary fill
areas shall be fenced appropriately to prohibit CRLF and CTS
movement into these areas, as supervised and verified by a qualified
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 4
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
biologist. Construction activities and access shall be confined to these
fenced areas during construction activities. A qualified biologist will
monitor the fence and construction activities daily when construction
activities are conducted within Tassajara Creek. A qualified biologist
with appropriate authorization pem.its to relocate ;my CRLF or CTS in
conjunction with a biological opinion shall be available to the on-site
biological monitor if CRLF or as (or other seooitivc wildlife speecs)
are found within the fenced areas during daily construction
monitoring; CRLF shall be relocated to undisturbed, preserved
portions of Tassajara Creek, and CTS shall be relocated to the nearest
protected upland habitat containing burrow habitat."
11. Page 68, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-11 is revised as follows:
"Prior to any tree removal or ground disturbance, a qualified biologist
(approved by the City) shall conduct special status breeding bird surveys
throughout the develo r' n of the p' ea and . . 2 feet
in adjacent habitats. Buffers s all be a minimum of 250 feet for raptors
(although sensitive rapters sueh as golden eagles. which are unlikely to nest
on the Dublin Ranch West site. may require a much larger buffer), and
between 50 and 100 feet for special status passerines depending on habitat
type (50 feet in dense vegetation, 100 feet in open areas). Prc C13f1s1;FueRSR
surveys sha±1 tal,e place throughsut ERe development reman of the Preject
area, inchH;JiRg surveys for grasslar.à 1/irels and birds lil'li!ly to nest ¡¡,JSRg the
Tassajafa Creek corridor. Nesting status shall be monitored by a qualified
biologist to detenlline when nests are no longer active. All activities shall be
prohibited within the buffer until after young have fledged andl9.r moved
out of the nest. This measure shall also apply to construction of recreational
trails in preserved areas."
12. Page 70, Impact BIO-6 is changed to read as follows:
"Supplemental Impact BIO-6: Loss of speEial sfiahw plants Congdon's
Tatplant"
13. On page 71, Supplemental Impact SM-BIO-15 is amended to read as follows:
"The majority of Con¡¡-don's tarpIants are scattered at low densities over
approximately four acres south of the existin§' residence on the site: the
remainin¡¡- individuals to be impacted occur in small areas west of Tassajara
Creek. Studies conducted by H.T. Harv,*, & Associates have revealed five
subpopulations within the Tassajara Creek Management Zone (TCMZ) ttw
average approximately 500 individuals on 0.5 acre each. Based on this
information. the ~ project shall establish and manage approximately 0.63
acres of create onc acre of new eeeupied habitat for Congdon's tarplant fuF
cvcry one acre sf eJdsting Congà6R's tarplant hat3ítat lest within saitat3lc, on
site prcscrved habifiat (5101C1\ as the TCMZ. Following CDFG and City
approval. the Dublin Ranch West Congdon's Tarplant Mitigation and
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 5
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Monitoring Plan (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2004) shall be implemented to
compensate for the loss of Congdon's tat.:plant individuals. project arJ31icæÜ
snall dcvclop and imJ31eHler.t a E!etailed MitigaEisR aRE! Morutoring War. ts
fully compensate fsr imJ3acts to Congdon's taq;rlaRt. The plan shaY iÐe1ude
tae mitigation design, meJ;hsàs sf salvage of e)dsEing seed, mainteftaREe
metasàs (iÐcluding weed HlaRagemcnt), monitoFiftg :J3Fscedurcs and
J3erfsrmancc criteria, re13sr13.Rg FeEfl'!ircmcnto, and a eSRtingcncy meaßlire te
prCBcrvc c)doting eft site seeupicd Congdon's \;aF 3I_t habitat at aR e"llia!
amount to lost haBitat iR ease of mitigation faillire. The project proponent
shall provide a secure funding source (such as a perfonnance bond) for the
implementation of the mitigation plan and long-tenn maintenance and
monitoring of the mitigation area. The created mitigation area must be
preserved in perpetuity (such as through a pennanent conservation
easement). The Mitigation and Monitoring Plan must be approved by the
Oty prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project. Mitigation shall
require a minimum of five years of monitoring and annual monitoring
reports shall be provided to the Oty."
14. Page 91, first line, the word "550" is replaced with "428."
15. Page 121, Utilities and Services, storm drainage, replace the sentence "Zone 7
is responsible for master planning" with the following: "Zone 7 owns and
maintains major storm drain channels in the Uvennore-Amador Valley.
Zone 7 is presently working on a Stream Management Plan to identify future
channel improvements beneficial to the residents of the Valley." Correct the
sentence that reads: "Drainage on the project area.. . connect with Zone 7
facilities south of 1-580," This should read: "Drainage on the project
area.. . connect with Zone 7 facilities north of 1-580."
16. Page 125: Zone 7' s Salt Management Plan does not include demineralizing
shallow groundwater and reinjecting it into the groundwater basin. Instead, it
includes blending demineralization of a portion of produced groundwater with
other water supplies for delivery to customers. Also, delete the word "water"
from the tenn "salt-water." The sentence that reads "the resulting salty brine is
to be piped..." with "brine processing facilities" to "concentrate processing
facilities." The correct name of the Zone 7 contact person is "David Lunn."
17. Page 136, Supplemental Mitigation Measure PARK-l is changed to read as
follows:
"PARK-I: ~~~~ ~ ~eF1tativc map OF Stage :1 Devels13ment Plan aPhFs7al,
wruche'lcr occurs fifft, As outlined below, the Project developer s all
either:
a) Revise the land use program for the Dublin Ranch West site to
provide an additional-bG41.9 net acres of Neighborhood Park land
use designation in lieu of a publici semi-public use; or
b) PrO'liàe Vì Ret acres of NeighborhssE! Pæw land use in elsse
prO)(Îmity sf tt.e Project site. As part of the PrQjed Pre-Annexation
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 6
February 2005
.-
I
I Agreement. pay fees to the City of Dublin to compensate for loss
of 1.9 acres of Neighborhood Park land on the Project site. Fees
I shall be equal to the neighborhood [iark in-lieu fee amount charged
to developers who do not have par and on their propert;y as set
by the Dublin Community Facility Fee report in effect at the time
I of subdivision map recording-. Fees shan be due at the tirne of final
subdivision map recordation."
I 18. Page 138: Third bullet point in middle of the page should be corrected to read:
"Alternative 3: Reor~anization and Development of the Dublin Ranch West with
a Revised Neighbor ood Park Location."
I 19. Page 141, first line of 5.4, Alternative 3, the acreage figure "8.7" is replaced
with "7.8."
I 20. Page 142, add a new Supplemental Mitigation Measure for Alternative 3:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure AL TP ARK-1 is added to read as follows:
I "ALTPARK-1: As outlined below. the Project developer shall either:
a) Revise the land use program for the Dublin Ranch West site to
I provide an additional 1.04 net acres of Neighborhood Park land use
designation in lieu of a public! semi-public use: or
b) As part of the Project Pre-Annexation Agreement. pay fees to the
I City of Dublin to compensate for loss of 1.04 acres of
Neighborhood Park land on the Project site. Fees shall be equal to
the neighborhood park in-lieu fee amount charged to developers
I who do not have parkland on their propert;y as set by the Dublin
Community Facility Fee report in effect at the time of subdivision
map recording. Fees shall be due at the time of final subdivision
I map recordation."
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters
I Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the 45-day public
comment period on the DSEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other
interested parties.
I
Commenter Date
I Federal Ae:encies
None
I State As>:encies
2.1 State Department of Transportation 1!03/05
I (Caltrans)"
2.2 State of California, Office of Planning 1/05/05
and Research"
I Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR Page 7
City of Dublin February 2005
I
I
I
Local Agencies
I 3.1 Alameda County Flood Control and 12/30/04
Water Conservation District Zone 7
3.2 East Bav Regional Park District 1/03/05
I 3.3 Dublin ~an Ramon Services District 1/03/05
(DSRSD
3.4 Alameda County Public Works 1/04/05'
I AlZencv
Interested Persons/Or l;anizations
I 4.1 Martin W. Inderbitzen, Attorney at 1/03/05
Law
. Although these comment letters were received after the close of the public comment period. responses
I are provided.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR Page 8
City of Dublin February 2005
I
un.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 9
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
81/03/2aa5 14:82
51a2865559
CAL-TRANS
PAGË 81
~T ,nnp"L.AI...IFORNJA. 8US'1NI!5.5 T1t.AN'f, p 'V 'TA1'1tw AW!1l-1nt.T4t1Nn Ar-iP.NC':Y
...WNOIÐct"'MW.t.D'7PNIõntillER.. GØ'IIfIi'Dðt
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
III ORAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510) 286-5505
PAX (510) 286-5513
TTY (800) 73S-:l929
a
RECEIVED ~
JAN 0 3 Z005
~~~t
FtøY(l U~,.1
Bt IMrgy 4!kuntl
January 3, 2005
STATE CLEARING HOUSE
ALA58076 1
SCH#2003022082
Mr. Mike Porto
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 2.1
Dear Mr. Porto:
DUBLIN RANCH WEST - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Thank you for including the California Department of Tnnsportation (Department) in the
envÎronmental review process fDr the Dublin Ranch West project. The comments presented
below are based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)j additional comments may be
forthcoming ¡!Mding final review of the DEIR. As lead. agency, the City of Dublin is responsible
for all project mitigation, including improvements to state Nghways and related drainage
systems. Please note that an encroachment pennit wil1 not be issued until our concerns are
adequately addressed. Further comments will be provided during the encroachment permit
process.
T1'4/Jk Vøb",.e Døta
Since current traffic volume data should be used whenever it is available, 2002 data for Interstate 2.1.1
580 (1-580) should be replaced with the more current 2003 volume data which is available from
the Department's website liIikllsted below. Pase 93, Section 4.6, Transportation and Circulation,
&isting roadway network.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffopa/safc:rcsrltrafdatal
Hydrørdkr
I. A HydrologylHydrauJic Smdy should be prepared and sUbmitted to the Department to enable 2.1.2
us to determine projecH:l;lated impacts on the lOO-year now I'ateS and flow conditions at the
1.580ffassajara Roadmterchange. Project-related drainage impacts to 1-580 should be
thoroughly evaluated, and mitigation recommended where appropriate since FEMA
Floodplain maps show flooding at 1-580 where Tassajara Creek crosses .the freeway west of
!he interchange, and the DEIR &tate$ that Tassajara Creek Is the outfall for project-related
StOl'm drainage systems. The project should Inc1ude measut!;s to reduce post-development
flow rates to existing: values. .
"Cal"øn.r i"'PI"O"'~ in(Jbi.lfry dt':1'(W Cøl((ø",~ I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
01/B3/2005 14:B2
5102B65559
CALTRANS
PAGE 02
Mr. Mil«! rono
JaDlllUY 3.lOOS
,.... 2
2. Development fee~ $hould be used to improve: the drainage infrasnucturc impacted by the: 2.1.3
project. Drainage: improvements should include ~upplementinll exi~ting cro~s culvens under
the freeway that have been ove~c:d by unmitigated development within the watershed.
Encroøchm,nt P,rmil
Work that encroache~ onto the State Right of Way (ROW) requires an encroachment pennit that 2.1.4
is i~~ued by the Depanment. To apply, a completed encroachment pemlÎt application.
environmental documentation, and five (5) ~ets of plans, clearly indicating State ROW, must be
submitted to the address below. Traffic-related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the:
con~ttuction plans during the encroachment pennit process. See the website link below for more
infonnation.
http://www.dot.ca.govihqltraffopsldevelopserv/permitsl
Sean Nozzllri. Di~trict Office Chief
Office of Permits
Califnmia DOT, District 4
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
Please feel free to call or email Pamcia Maurice of my ~taff at (510) 622-1644 or
natricia maurice@dot.ca.20v with any question~ -regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
.~
TIMO . SABLE
Di~trict Branch Chief
IORICEQA
.----r--.
e: Mr. Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse
"CøltnuI$ ØrtpMlJfllffUb/lUy lJCT~ CdI{fÞrnu. "
I
~
.
I
I
I
I
I
Arnold
Schw=negger
Governor
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_I
I
I
I
I
I
S TAT E OF C A L I FOR N I A
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
January 10, 2005
Michael Porto
City of Dublin
Development Services Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 2.2
Subject: Dublin Ranch West Project
SCH#: 2003022082
Deal' Michad Porto:
.t'!:1'''~
(~)
.~.
.....-;..~
Jan Boel
A-cIiIIg Direc!or
The endosed comment (s) on your Draft EIR waS (were) received by the State Clearingbouso after the end
of the state review period, whicb closed on December 30, 2004. We are forwardmg these comments to you
because tbey provide information 01' raiso issues tbat should be addressed in your flnal enviro¡¡mental
document.
The California Environmentai Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments.
How~vtr we ~ncourage you to incorporate th~se additional comments into YoW' fmal environmental
document and to consider thenl prior to taking final action on the proposed project.
Please contact d1e State Clearingbouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the
environmental review process. If you have a qu~stion regarding tb.t above-named project, please refer to
the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number (2003022082) when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
~s~·
Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resource.s Agency
'tiCA~
. 6
ö\-\}-o
@
1400 TENTH STREBT P,O, BOX ~044 SACRAMSNTO, CALlFORN1A 9S812·3044
TEL(916)44S-0613 FAX (916) 323·301 8 WWW.opr.ClLgoV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
PI.¡;:ASANTON, CALIfORNIA 94588-5127 ,
PHON£ (925) 464-:2600 ~"'x (925) 4!;i2-::!914
5997 PARK$IDI; DRIVE .
December 30, 2004
Mr. Mike Porto, Project Platu1er
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RECEiV'EiJ
JAN 0 3 R:C'ù
. A""IN Letter 3.1
ptJBLlN P........ -
Re: Dublin Ranch West Project - Draft Supplemental Enviromnentallmpact Report (DSEIR)
Dear Mr. Porto:
Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA document. We have several comments which are made in the context of
Zone 7's mission to provide drinking water, non-potable water for agriculture and irrigated turf, flood protection, and
groundwater and stream management within the Livermore-Amador Valley. Zone 7 previously commented on the
Notice of Preparation for a DSEIR for the Wallis Ranch Project, which WaS the predecessor to this project. Please see
euclosed March 17, 2003 letter for YOIll reference. Ow- comments are organized to follow the DSEIR, as follows:
L
Chapter 3.0 Project Description" 3.6 Project Development Plan, page 13
This paragraph identified existing and proposed land use designations for the project. The project will consist 3.1.1
of low, medium, and mediwn-high density residential, neighborhood commercial, and park and open space.
Mitigation for the creation of impervious areas within the Livermore- Amador Valley is addressed 1:lrrough the
collection of Special Drainage Area 7-1 Drainage Fees. The drainage fees are collected for Zone 7 by the local
governing agency upon approval of vesting tentative or final map for new streets/development and/or upon
approval of any new building/grading/use permit required of 3tJ.y public agency/commercial/residential/
industrial/agricultun>l user. Fees are dependent upon whetherpost-project impervious area conditions are
greater than pre-project conditions and/or whether fees have previously becu paid. Effective January 1,2005,
the fees will be $0,662 per square feet of new impervious surface area,
2,
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis - 4.7 Utilities and Services~ Storm Drainage
Under Environmental Setting, page 121, replace sentence that reads "Zone 7 is responsible for master 3.1.2
planning." with "Zone 7 owns and maintains major storm drain ehannels in the Livermore-Amador Valley.
Zone 7 is presently working on a Stream Management Master Plan to identify future channel improvements
beneficial to the residents of the Valley." Correct sentence that reads "Drainage on the project area. -- COtu1ect
with Zone 7 facilities south ofl"580" to "Drainage on the project area. ..connect with Zone 7 facilities north of
1-580." It should be noted that Zone 7 does not typically maintain culverts, as they are usually owned by
CalTrans, or are the City's responsibility to maintain.
Unde!- Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyst., (Zane 7), page 125, it is noted that the City will require hydrology 3.1.3
and hydraulic analysis from developers for future projects within Dublln Ranch West for review by both the
City and Zone 7. Please be advised tbat Zone 7 should be allowed to review and conunent prior to the
commencemaIt of each future project.
3.
Chapter 4,0 Enviranmental Analysis - Supplemental ¡'!formation in Rewonse to Notice of Preparation (NOP);
Main Basin Salt Loading (Zone 7), page 125
There are a number of correçtions to be made in this paragraph. Please be advised that Zone 7's CUlTent (near-
teno) Salt Management PI3tJ. does not include "demineralizing shallow groundwat.-r__, and reinjecting it into
the groundwater basin." Instead, we are planning on demineralizing a portion of the produced groundwater
from our existing supply wells and blending it with other water supplies. for delivery to our customers. The:
portion of sentence that reads. "This impact is more of a regional saltrwater management problem, ...~) should
be revised to read "This impact is more ora regional salt management problem, ...,"Also, replace: portion of
3.1.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Mike Porto, Project Planner
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
December 30, 2004
Page 2
sentence that reado "the resulting salty brine is to be piped..." with "the resulting concentrate is to be piped
..." Similarly, replace portion of sentence that reads LL brine processing facilities" to "concentrate processing
facilities". Pleast also COlTect spelling for Zone 7's. contact for infonnation on main basin salt loading., Dav~
Lunn.
4.
Appendix 8.1 Initial Study
Under paragraph 8, Hydrology and Water Quality, page 39, it sbould be noted that all proposed Mitigation 3.1.5
Measures for Hydrology specified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, will require input from Zone 7 prior to
implementation, as any new drainage plans proposed could have an effect on .zone 7's Stream Management
Master Plan. The Mitigation Measures should also defme what sort of channel improvements will be required
of developers.
In the first sentence of the Environmental Setting paragraph, page 51, plea.. be advised that Zone 7 is a water 3.1.6
wholesaler and does not servo the project area directly. In addition, Zone 7 does not own Or maintain any
storm drain facilities within the Project Arca, In the second paragraph, replace sentence that reads "new storm
drainage facilities which would connecr to existing facilities maintained and controlled by Alameda County
Flood Control and Wa"r Con,ervation District, Zone 7" with "new ,torm drain facilitie, which would connect
to existing facility owned and maintained by Zone 7, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District.
Also, please submit for Zone 7 review all future plan and specification and future studies pertaining to the proposed
project~ attn: Suzanne Alaksa, Associate Engine:e:r, Advance Planning,
We appreciate the opportunity to Comment on these documents. Please feel ftee to call Jack FOIlg at (925) 484-2600,
ext, 245, ormy,e1fat exl. 400, if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
~"-....~.
Jim Horen
Principal Engineer
Advam::o Planning Section
fQ"-
lli:JF:arr
Enclosure
cc: Dave Requa, DSRSD
John Mahoney, Zone 7
Dave Lunn, Zone 7
J O~ Seto; Zone 7
Mart Katen, Zone 7
Jack Fong, Zone 7
Mary Lim, Zone 7
P:\AdvplllrllJ{ cklJ]·21·Q4 Dubli;¡ Ront:h W~~t DSEIR.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
5997 PARKS IDE DRIVË . PLI;.ASANTON. CALIFORNIA 94588-5127 ~ PHONe (S25) 484-2600 FAX (925) 462-3914
March 17, 2003
Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr.
Devolopment Services Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Notice of Preparation for Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for
Wallis Ranch Reorganization and DeveJopmtnr (pA 02·028) and Initial Study
Dear Mr. Peabody:
Zone 7 has reviewcd the referenced Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study. We have several
commcnts which are made in the context of Zone 7' s responsibilities in our service area to provide
wholesale treated water, non-potable water for agriculture and irrigated turf, flood protection, and
groundwater and s1ream management. Our commrnts are listed below and are organized to follow the
order of the environmental check1ist in this Initial Study:
1. Project Background and Description - Infrastructure, page 5
Tassajar> Creek, extending from the southerly boundary of the project to approximately 2,100
feet south of the Alameda County/Contra Costa County line, and an approximate 400-foot long
reach of the tributary to Tassajara Creek, are authorized Zone 7 facilities. If any aJteration of
Tassajara Creek or the tributary are proposed, then a hydraulic study of the effeet of such
alteration on the water surface under the 100-year flow conditions and the proposed development
should be submitted to Zone 7 for review and comment.
2. Soction 8, Hydrology and Water QuaJity, item 0), page 41
Mitigation for the creation of new impervious areas within the Liverrnore-Amador Valley is
addressed through the collection of Special Drainage Area (SDA) 7-1 drainage fees. Zone 7's
standard mitigation practice is to collect an SDA 7-1 fee on any new buildings, improvements
{including, but not limited to paving), or structures to be constructed that substantially increase
the imperviousness of the land surface.
3. Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality, item e), page 41
A hydrology study is needed to determine the impacts to Zone 7'5 facilities. Zone 7 requests that
it be able to review and comment prior to commencement of the project.
4. Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality, items g and i), page 42
A hydraulic study is needed to determine the impacts ofthe project on the 100-year water surface
in Tassajara Creek, Zone 7 requests that it be able to review and comm.ent prior to
conllncncement of the proj ect.
I
I
I
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr.
City of Dublin
March 17, 2003
Page 2
I
5.
Section 13, Public Services, Water and Sewer, page 46
I
I
This project will also be annexed to DSRSD for water and sewer services. and DSRSD's master
utilities plans, including recycled water, will cover this project area. The Initial Study does not
assess the potential salt loading impacts over our main groundwater basin. Zone 7 considers all
applied water (rainwater is an exception), including both potable water and recycled water, to
contribute salt loading to the groundwater basin and there must be mitigation ofthe associated
impacts.
I
I
Zone 7's Groundwater Demineralization Project is the recommended project to accomplish Zone
7' s Salt Management Program's goal of non-degradation of our main groundwater basin ITom the
long-term buildup of salts. Zone 7 expects to begin design in 2004, with project completion
expected in 2006. We request that the City of Dublin express support for the Groundwater
Demineralization Project within the Draft EIR as the appropriate mitigation for any projects
proposed. Otherwise, we request the City address the mitigation of any salt loading impacts of the
project should Zone 7's proposed Groundwater Demineralization Project not be constructed and
placed into operation.
I
6.
Section 16, Utilities and Service Systems, item d), page 52
I
A portion of the project area is located in Contra Costa County. Zone 7's service area is in
Alameda County. The only portion of Contra Costa County that receives Zone 7 water is a
portion of Dougherty Valley, and that is through a special agreement. Please explain if there was
an intent to serve the Contra Costa County portion ofthe project area with Zone 7 water.
I
I
I
I
We appreciate the opportunity to COnnTIent on these documents. Please feel free to call me at (925) 484-
2600, ex!. 400, or Jack Fong at ex!. 245, ¡fyou have any questions.
Very truly yours,
./~ ~
~ren
L/· Principal Engineer
Advance Planning Section
I
JH:JF:arr
cc:
Dave Requa, DSRSD
Ed Cummings, Zone 7
John Mahoney, Zone 7
Dave Lunn, Zone 7
Joe Scto, Zone 7
Matt Katen, Zone 7
Jack Fong, Zone 7
I
I
I
I
f':í1~; P ;\..!\dvplall\CEQA Rc=:fcrrals\ Wal1isRançhReOTganizatiönDevelol'ment.doc
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,. ~~veiL OJOSð5 USm!i1L
10 ~ 5LI {jW\ Si
PARK DISTRICT
EAST BAY REGIONAL
January 3, 2005
Via Fax and US Postal Service
Mike Porto, Project Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 3.2
RE: Tassajara Creek Regional Trail- Dublin Ranch West Project (PA 02-028)
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2003022082
Dear Mr. Porto:
Thank you for providing the East Bay Regional Park District ("District") with a
copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the
Dublin Ranch West proposed project. As stated in the District's Response to the
Notice of Preparation (see March 18, 2003 letter to Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr.) as part
of the implementation of the District's adopted Master Plan 1997, the District
seeks to develop the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail from Dublin Blvd., through
the proposed project, continuing northward and eventually connecting to Mt.
Diablo State Park..
The proposed project would not be consistent with the District's Master Plan
1997. The Master Plan locates the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail along the ridge
in the vicinity of the eastern edge of Parks RFT A, and then proceeding northward
along the ridge toward Mt. Diablo State Park. Tbe proposed project would
location the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail in a narrow corridor between two
areas proposed for low and medium density residential development. The Draft
SEIR is inadequate because in does not address the significant impacts associated
with the lack of consistency with the Master Plan, and the impacts from changing
the existed open space to residential development adjacent to the regional trail
corridor.
Please call me at 510/544-2621 if you would like to discuss this further.
II
2950 Peralta Oaks Court P.O, Box 5381 Oakland, CA 94605,·0381
TE~ 510635-0135 FA;': 510569-4319 TOD 510633-0460 www,ebParl.;.s,o,g
I;1()AHD OF OiR!:CTO~S
DDug Sider¡
Fiesicen¡
W;,¡r¡J 4
,Jean Slri
Vi¡;~·Prt:!~ICjenl
W;:¡rç 1
Beveriy Lane
Tr~~~lJl~r
warOt.
Carul Sevefl/"¡
SE'c(e:a'~'
'i¡~ri:l ~
John Sut!5r
WfJJd 2
Ay~ Wics/l¿¡(r:O
Ward 5
Teo' RadkO
Waro 7
Pat O'Brien
GGn~r~1 M~,.,ag~r
,
~,
,
,
"
~
-
c.
"
}.
,
¡~
,
i
I
I
I
DUBLIN
SAN RAMON
SERVICES
DISTRICT
---
.~,.f~~oN $E;~"~
:....0/;;-, .,,"Ie.'.§},
/!~j, ¡ /: .t~i<,\,
,~ /1,. ~"
;'i:j; \ ~:,i
;(,~ ~::I',I
,~?' , ,;,.",q)~ ,.. '"iJ;/
",:. ,¡ ll.). 0·....· ~ t_IIJ¡Ü . .~....
\~:i~~C-E '¡9~'I.;t-;;/:~/
."." , ,.,~~/.-'....-....:
f<'u.e,i ~q::>lt OWS 0 'S
US ml+/ L /0', sl/ FfM
$£
,
7051 Dublit':! Bm:.levard
~)ublin, CalifQrnia 94568
FAX: 925829 1180
q25 828 0515
I
I
I
I
January 3, 2005
Mr. Mike Porto, Project Planner
City of Dublin, Community Development Depar1ment
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 3.3
Subject: P A 02-û28, General PIan/Specific Plan Amendment, prezoning and Stage I Development
Plan for Dublin Rancb West-Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report
I
I
Dear Mike:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment ou the subject document. The Dublin San Ramon Serviees Dismct
("Dismct") has the following comments.
I
Potable Water Suvvlv and Service
I
As you point out in the draft ElR, the entire Dublin Rsnch West project will create an additional maximum
potable water demand of 320,000 gallons per day. Because of the planning already done by the District, in
cooperation with the City of Dublin, that demand for Dublin Rsnch West is already incorporated into the
Dismct's Urban Water Management Plan and 2004 Water Master Plan Update in progress. In 2004, the
Dismct performed and completed a "Water Service Analysis and Water Supply Assessment" for the Dublin
Ranch West project in accordance with the "Agreement to Settle Water Litigation" between the District and
the City of Livenoore; Citizens for Balanced Growth; Zone 7 Water Agency, Alameda County flood Control
and Water Conservation District; Windemere Partnet'S; and Shapelllndustries, Inc., dated November 2, 1999.
A copy of the document was forwarded to the City of Dublin on December 15,2004.
3.3.L
I
I
I
The facilities currently planned by the District for this area will be of sufficient capacity to meet the increased
demand at full build out of this project; and this demand will be mitigated somewhat by the extension of
recycled water pipelines through the project area and adherence to Dublin's standard water conservation
measures. To obtain water service fiom the District, potable water lines must be extended into the project site.
The pipeline must be constructed by the project applicant and dedicated to the District for operation and
maintenance. The sizcs and locations of all water pipelines should be identified prior to project approval for
installation. Coordination with the District should be conducted to ensure that the proposed activities do not
interfere with existing District facilities and the installation of new water lines are completed in conformance
with the District's Standard Procedures. Spedficatio11$ and Drawings and 2004 Updated Water Master Plan
m progress.
I
I
The supply of the 320,000 gallons per day of potable water for this project is provided for in the long-teno
contracts between the Zone 7 Water Agency and the District. No additional mitigation is necessary for
obtaining additional water supply for this project.
I
I
TIn" ,)",bli" 8",:) R~"'jOn ::;,:rvIC~& 1)'&~;lC! i~ .'1 J>"j,\i" E'\l:t~·
I
File:: Chren,
H·\EN(iDEPT\CEQAI.205-02-200~\ùub!in ~h W~5t SEIR Ltr 1-3-(l~,d('JC
I
I
I
Mr, Mike Porto
City of Dublin
January 3, 2005
Page 2 of2
I
Reevcled Water S""Dlv and Service
I
District Ordinance No. 301 requires recycled water use for all new land uses that are conunercial, multi-family 3.3.2 '
residential and institutional irrigation within the District's potable water service area. A portion of the
development of the Dubtin Ranch West falls into these categories. In your report, you show a maximum
expected average day demand fouecycled water ofl04,300 gallons per day for irrigatiou. The District's 2000
Recycled Water Plan has 132,900 gallons per day for irrigation. The Water Master Plan Update currently in
progress will incorporate the rednced demand.
I
To obtain recycled water service from the District, recycled water tines must be extended into the project site,
The pipelines must be constnlcted by the project applicant and dedicated to the District for operation and
maintenance. The sizes and locations of all pipelines should be identified prior to project approval for
installation. The installation, operation and maintenance of recycled water lines shall conform to the District's
Standard Procedures, Specification. and Drawing. and Recycled Waier Use Guidelines.
I
I
Wasiewaier Servkes and Wastewater Effluent Di'flosal
I
Wastewater flows at Dublin Ranch West's full build ont has been included in the planned capacity expansions 3.3.3
of the District's Wastewater Treatment Plant and LA VWMA's wastewater effluent disposal facilities.
Providing wastewater collection, treatment and export services is contingent upon the Dublin Ranch West
Development satistying all requirements contained in the District's Code and implementing the District's
master plans, poticies and ordinances.
I
The District has included the project area in its master plan study Sewer services. So that the project may .3.4.4
receive sewer services from the District, sanitary sewer lines must be extended into the project site. These
facilities must be constructed by the project applicant and dedicated to the District for operation and
maintenance. The sizes and locations of all District utilities and facilities should be identified prior to project
approval. Coordination with the District should be conducted to enSure that the proposed activities do not
interfere with existing District facilities and the installation of new sewer lines are completed in confonnance
with the District's Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings and updated master plans,
I
I
I
I
As noted above, our agency does not deem any mitigation beyond those specified in the Draft EIR for the areas
of our potable water, recycled water, or wastewater collection and disposal services to the community. We
feel the joint planning effort done between the City of Dublin and the District has successfully identified those
areas of concern and planned reasonable solutions for those areas. Thank you for your consideration in this
matter. If you have any questions regarding these conunents please call me at (925) 875-2255.
I
¿Z~
RHODORAN.B~~
Associate Engineer
I
I
rp
cc: D. Requa
D. Behrens
S. Delight
R. Portugal
I
I
fí1c:; ChrOn.
H:\ENi]DEPI\CEQA\20~-OJ-200~blin Rimch Weill 5ElR LIT I-J-O~.OO~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
95 Tumor Court, Room 100
Hayward, CA 94545 -2698
(510) 670·6601
FAX (5 to) 670-5269
January 4, 2005
Mike Porto
Project Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dubli¡¡, CA 94568
Letter 3.4
Dear Mr. Porto:
Subject: Dublin Ranch West Project
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Reference is made to your transmittal of the above noted Draft SEIR for the Dublin Ranch
West project, located on 189 acres within unincorporated Alameda County, west side of
Tassajara Road, east of Parks RFTA, south of the Alameda/Contra Costa county line and
north of the existing Dublin City limit line,
We have reviewed the submitted documents and offer the following comments:
I, Exhibit 16 shows a future Tassajara realigmnetrt. Transitions will be l1eeded within the
cWTent project limits.
3.4.1
2. Evaluation should be made on construction impacts to adjacent County roads.
3.4.2
3.4.3
3. Evaluate impacts to existing County roads due to increased traffic. Potential traffic
calming requirements may be needed for County roads.
4. Although a conceptual sketch is provided regardin.g this project, it is critical that roadway
improvements be included in the area between the jurisdicti011al boundaty line and the
most southerly limits of the project. Experience has demonstrated that this roadway area
has been subjected to previous incidents due to limited shoulder area, motorist speed, and
reaction time with motorists in the turning-movement process. Since this section of
roadway has a curve-linear aligmnent, it is critical that roadway design standards and
improvements be considered beyol1d the frontage limits of the parcel.
5. With the future alignment ofTassajara Road and Fallon Road, it is important for right of
way dedication (to the ultimate aligmnent) of this roadway be considered. The existing
right of way on Tassajara Road is 66 feet with a future-width-line of I 00 feet.
3.4.4.
3.4.5
O\-\Q-ûrJ
R(~IiEÐ
TO SERVE AND PRESERVE OUR COMMUNITY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Mike Porto
2
January 4, 2005
6. Prior to finalizing this design concept, it is suggested that a roadway conceptual plan be
considered for the surrounding area. Although not all lands westerly of Tassajara Road
are a part of the proposed project, the ultimate development of this area. will undoubtedly
impact surrounding parcels and roadway improvements along Tassajm-a. Road.
7. On Tassajara Road, the installation of a traffic signal, deceleration and acceleration lanes,
potential for on-street bike lanes, shoulder improvements, street lighting, and additional
traffic control signing and striping should be considered. These improvements are further
summarized in the consultant's report, "Supplemental Impacts for Potential Traffic
Safety Impacts."
3.4.6
3.4.7
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
for this project. If you have any questions, please call Andrew Otsuka at (510) 670-6613.
Very truly yours,
~v-y
Deputy Director
Development Services Department
lAD
cc: Hank Ackerman, Flood Program
JOM Fenstennacher, Real Estate Division
James Chu, Road Department
Robert Preston, Traffic Engineering
Mario Montalvo, MaiDtenance & Operations
Tom Hinderlie, MaiDtenance & Operations
Fred Wolin, Environmental Services
Robert Hale, Clean Water Division
Gary Moore, Permits Section
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vé{!~ 0«') ~
MARTIN W. INDERBITZEN
Attomey at Law
January 3, 2005
Hand Delivered
Mike Porto
Planning Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, California 94568
Letter 4.1
Re: Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Re¡wrt
Dear Mike:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Dublin Ranch West SDEIR.
Comments pertinent to the Biology Chapter are attached herein as a separate document.
All other chapter comments are presented below.
Exhibit 12 Master Infrastructure Plan. We wish to clarifY that although the Plan does
not illustrate Zone 2 water lines in Tassajara Road, north of the primary project entry, and
in Fallon Road, DSRSD plans to have these lines placed in these street segments.
Pal!e 14, Second bullet item: replace "9.7" with "3.7".
Pal!e 18, Second paragraph under Utility services, second line: replace "westerly" with
"easterly" .
Pal!e 91. First line of page: replace "550" with "428".
Paee 141. First paragraph of 5.4 Alternative 3 . . .: replace "8.7" with "7.8".
Pal!es 1-2 and 13S-136:
The Dublin City Council held a public workshop on October 5, 2004 to discuss various
issues regarding the Dublin Ranch West project, including reviewing and evaluating four
plans that looked at different locations and sizes of neighborhood parks on or near the
project site. The Council selected Option Four, which provided 7.66 acres of
neighborhood park on site, and 1.04 acres of neighborhood park that would be located on
an adjacent development parcel because "it would serve the different needs of the
community". Additionally, 1.2 acres ofland was set-aside on the project site that could
be utilized as either public/semi-public or neighborhood park uses. The Council accepted
PQrtolJ
DR-Wallis
7077 KoU Center patkWay, Suite 120, ~Jeasa.nton, California 94666 Phone 92S 485"1060 Fax 925 4a5~1065
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Porto
January 3, 2005
Page Two
the fact that neighborhood park acreage could be moved off site if need be. Based on the
foregoin.g, we request that mitigation measure PARK-I be revised as follows:
PARK-I. Prior to tentative map or Stage 2 Development Plan approval, whichever
occurs first, the project developer shall:
(a) Revise the land use program for the Dublin Ranch West site to provide an
additional 1.04 net acres of Neighborhood Parks land use designation in
lieu of a public/semi-public use; or
(b) Pay in-lieu fees for required Neighborhood Park acres.
Pa!!", 135, first paragraph after Suuulemeotal Impact PARK-t: Revise "7.66" acres to
u6.8".
4.1.7
Biological Resources Section 4.3
Our remaining comments focus on the Biological Resources Section, Section 4.3 of the
Supplemental Draft EIR. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are two
memorandums prepared by H. T: Harvey & Associates (the first dated December I, 2004;
the second dated December 30, 2004) each referencing specific sections of the
Supplemental Draft EIR with appropriate comments.
4.1.8
In addition, it is our belief that the Environmental Setting Section of Section 4.3, at Page
47 of the SDEIR does not adequately consider the beneficial impacts of the Tassajara
Creek Management Zone for its unique beneficial affects on the wildlife that are
potentially,' impacted by the project. If the SDEIR were to properly consider the
foregoing as part of the environmental baseline (California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines Section 15125) the SDEIR would conclude that the potential affects on the
California Red-Legged Frog from this proj ect are reduced to a level of insignificance.
The Tassajara Creek Management Zone (TCMZ) must be considered in conjunction with
the Biological Opinion of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service dated July I, 2002
together with the Project Area Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared by H.T. Harvey
& Associates as well as the Tassajara Creek Conservation Area Management Plan and
the Tassajara Creek Private Open Space Management Plan. If one were to review the
Biological Opinion dated July I, 2002,. it would be accurate to conclude that the
development of Dublin Ranch West was not specifically identified as a project impact for
the Opinion. Nevertheless, the Service did take into consideration the potential
development of Dublin Ranch West; two potential bridge crossings across Tassajara
Creek and the City of Dublin's park and recreation plan when issuing the Biological
Opinion and approving the Tassajara Creek Management Zone and its associated
Portol.3
DR.-Wallis
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Porto
January 3, 2005
Page Three
mitigation and monitoring plan, the Tassajara Creek Conservation Area Management
Plan and the Tassajara Creek Private Open Space Management Plan.
!
The descriptions used by the Service and the measmes required in the TCMZ indicate
that impacts to the upland area of Dublin Ranch West as dispersal habitat for the
California Red-Legged Frog have already been considered. As a result, the impacts of
Dublin Ranch West on the California Red-Legged Frog dispersal habitat are insignificant.
The Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states under the
Section entitled Affects of the Proposed Action Subsection Direct and Indirect Affects·
(California Red- Legged FroglRed~ Legged Frog Critical Habitat) at Pages 22 to 23.
"The City of Dublin is planning to construct trails along both sides of
Tassajara Creek within the Tassajara Creek Open Space. These future
trails may result in the loss of additional acres of California Red~Legged
Frog habitat and on-going affects in the form of harm, harassment, injury,
and mortality to California Red-Legged Frogs from habitat loss and
modification, trail construction related disturbance, trapping and relocation,
loss of movement corridors, increased predation by pets, crushing by
horses, bicycles and pedestrians, and capture for pets." .
Under the Section entitled Cumulative Affects (still within the Section entitled Affects of
the Prooosed Action) the Service states at Pages 29 and 30:
"A future housing development is planned immediately to the west of the
Tassajara Creek open space. The Applicants plan to construct two road
crossings over Tassajara Creek at some undetermined future time through
the 53 acre Tassajara Creek open space to provide access to the site
of the future housing development. T1ús future development would likely
result in the loss of additional acres of California Red-Legged Frog and
California Tiger Salamander habitat."
The Service states in its Opinion under the Section Incidental Take Statement subsection
Amount or Extent of Take that:
". . . the Service anticipates that an unquantifiable number of California
Red-Legged Frogs will be taken in conjunction with the following: . . .
(2) Temporary loss of 53 acres of California Red-Legged Frog habitat fioln
the Habitat enhancement [as a result offuture crossings] and perpetual
recreation activities by the City of Dublin Parks Department [as a result
of construction and operation of City trails ". [Emphasis added]
Portel_3
DR-Wallis
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Porto
January 3, 2005
Page Four
These refereDces to the temporary loss and the perpetual recreation activities by the City
of Dublin are clear references to the authorized incidental take as a result of the activities
identified under Direct and fudirect Affects at Pages 22 and 23 and cumulative affects at
Pages 29 and 30. Because the recreational trails are anticipated to be constructed within
the Tassajara Creek open space which is immediately adjacent to the Tassajara Creek
Management Zone (and between the Tassajara Creek Management Zone and the
proposed development of Dublin Ranch West) the additional acres of Red-Legged Frog
habitat, the harassmoot, injury and mortality to California Red-Legged Frogs fÌ'om habitat
loss and modification, the loss of movement corridors, the increased predation by pets,
crushing by horses, bicycles and pedestrians, capture for pets, trail construction related
disturbance, trapping and relocation resulting rrom the Dublin Ranch West project
proposal is insignificaflt inasmúch as it has already been taken into consideration by the
Service in the Incidental Take Statement of its Biological Opinion dated July I, 2002.
The Tassajara Creek Private Open Space Management Plan states as its goal as follows:
,
"The primary goal of the P~S [Private Open Space] is to manage
the annual grassland habitat, oak savannabloak woodland habitat,
and swale in a manner that is compatible with management .
of the adjoining TCMZ (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2003b) and the
overall TCCA [Tassajara Creek Conservation Area]. In order to
achieve this goal, the POS wil1 be managed as a transition area between
the TCMZ and the adjacent future development."
With the issuance of its Biological Opinion on July 1, 2002 and approval of the Tassajara
Creek Conservation Area along with its related management documents (for the
Tassajara Creek Management Zone and the Tassajara Creek Private Open Space) there is
little doubt that the Service intended to provide for the development and enhancement of
habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog within the Tassajara Creek Conservation
Area and to protect the California Red-Legged Frog fÌ'om the approved and anticipated
development adjacent to the Tassajara Creek Conservation Area by among other things
providing in the management docwnents for a "transition area between the Tassajara
Creek Management Zone and adjacent future development". Thus, any impact to the
California Red-Legged Frog as a result of upland dispersal would be insignificant
provided that the Tassajara Creek Open Space Management Plan is complied with.
Porto iJ
DR . Walli~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. "=
Mike Porto
January 3, 2005
Page Five
For ease of reference, I have enclosed:
1. A complete copy of the Biological Opinion issued by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service highlighted (a) !(J show the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service acknowledgment of adjacent development and the
impacts thereof identified under both direct and indirect impacts (page 22)
as wen as cumulative affects (page 29); (b) incidental take as result of
''perpetual recreation activities by the City of Dublin Parks Department".
(page3I).
2. The Tassajara Creek Conservation Area Management Plan.
3, Tassajara Creek Private Open Space Management Plan.
4. Portions of the Project Area Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
Once again, thank you for the chance to comment upon this document. Please feel fiee to
. can me at 925-485-1060 if you wish to discuss these comments in greater detail.
Very truly yours,
'"
./~¿7~
MARTIN W. lNDERBITZEN
MWI/lmh
Enclosures
cc: Jim Tong
Connie Goldade
-
portol.3
DR· WalU;¡.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(¡j.. . H T. HARVEY &ASSOC/ATES
~ ECOLOGICAL CONSlLTANTS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Martin Inderbitzen/Counie Goldade
Steve Rotte,uborn
1 December 2004
Comments On Dublin Ranch West Draft SEIR
Our staff has reviewed the Draft Supplemental ElR fOr the Dublin Ranch West Project. Some of
our previous concerns on previous drafts have been addressed, but we still have concerns
regarding several items. Specific comments are as follows:
Impact BIO-! (California Tiger Salamander [CTS]):
. SM-BIO-I and: SM-BIO-2, page 1-4 (also pages 56 and 64): The existing passive
exclusion barrier was installed, with CDFG approval, to act as a temporary barrier to
exclude CTS aom entering the future development and construction areas while allowing
CTS to leave the site. This purpose is the same as the "temporary herpetological fence"
described in BIO-1 a) not a pennanent fence Or barrier as in BIO-2. BIO-1 a) should be
modified to allow a temporary herpetological fence or barrier and delete referepce to use of
the current one-way barrier in a. pennanent capacity. In addition, the passive exclruiion
nature of this barrier allows it to substitute for trapping along the perimeter.as would be
required under BIO-I b). BIO-I b) should be modified to describe a salvage plan rather
than exclUSively a trapping plan. BIO-.2 should also be modified to delete description of
the existing passive exclusion barrier for permanent uSe.
4.1.9
. SM-BIO-3, page 1-5 (also pages 63 and 64 and Table 6): The DSElR states in several
places that CTS may breed in Tassajara Creek, and that further surveys should be
conducted in the creek. In our opinion, further surveys for CTS in T assajara Creek should
not be necessary. Reports summarizing surveys for CTS by H.T. Harvey & Associates
(HTH) along Tassajara Creek on the Dublin Ranch West site were provided to Wetlands
Research Associates (WRA). Hili conducted surveys for CTS in suitable habitat in the
Tassajara Creek drainage on the Dublin Ranch west site in 1993,J995,and 2000.
Tassajara Creek is a very deep, stroug stream with high flow volume and velocity during
the winter months when CTS are active, and it is our opinion (supported by multiple
surveys) that this creek does pot provide breeding habitat for CTS. As a result of the
unsuitability of habitat along most of the creek drainage, CTS larval surveys were focused
On the only habitat within the Tassajara Creek drainage that approaches potential breeding
habitat (an isolated oxbow). No evidence of CTS breeding was found in this area or
elsewhere in Tassajara Creek, and we do not think that further surveys for breeding CTS in
T assaj ara Creek are necessary.
4.1.10
.~
San Jose Office
3150 Almaden Expr.ssway, Suite 145
SD-!l Jo,., CA 95118 ·408-448-9450. Fax: 408·448-9454
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. SM~BIO-4, page 1-6 (also pages 64-65); The calculation of CTS aestivation habitat as
approximately 110 acres is not explained further than as "all areas of upland habitat" (page 4.1.11
63). We believe the development impact area where loss of aestivation habitat will occur
to be approxiInately 97 2 acres. We base this on the develQpment acreage accessible tD
CTS as shown in Exhibit 11 (page 32), We alSD recommend that more flexibility in the
location of the CTS mitigation site be permitted in the event that locating a suitable
mitigation site within the Dublin/LiveIUlore Valley area is found to be impracticable. We
reco=end that the sentence "The mitigation aestivation habitat shall be located in the
Dublin and Livermore Valley area and shall exhibit similar characteristics to the habitat
lost" be revised to read that the mitigation site "shall be located as close to the
Dublin/Livermore Valley area as is practicable, and as approved by the USFWS and
CDFG".
. SM-BIO-7, page 1-9 (also pages 65 and 66): This measure should be modified to add; 4.1.12
. During ground disturbing activities, construction employees should receive educatioJ:lal
trainillg concerning sensitive species. _Construction of multi-phase projects, such as this
type of residentiallco=ercial developmeJ:lt, can take several years. In addition, as
cOJ:lstruction progresses in a given area, the type of contractor changes nom those
exclusively moving dirt to those only naming or finishing buildings. Employees can
change daily during many phases of the projects makiJ:lg it a monumental task to track and
provide trainillg during all phases. It is appropriate to educate construction employees
during ground disturbing activities when they might encounter special-status species,
however, construction employees during the later phases (e.g. ca¡penters) will not be
encountering those species.
Impact BIO-2 (California Red-legged Frog [eRLF):
. SM-BIO-8, page 1-10 (also pages 53-54 and 66~67): While we agree that CRLF could' 4;1.13
leave the Tassajara Creek drainage in a few areas (e.g., at the farm road crossings) where
the topography might allow such egress, we believe that most movement by CRLF in the
area will be via the drainage itself, and that use of the upland areas On the site by CRLF is
likely very limited. We do not expect eRLF dispersal across the uplands west of Tassajara
Creek on this site to be nearly as high as dispersal along. the creek drainages, and across the
portion of the Conservation Area that abuts Camp Parks to the north. We believe that the
description of llpland/dispersal habitat for CRLF on the Dublin Ranch West site relies too
heavily on the definitions provided iJ:l the critical habitat rule for the CRLF rather than this
important site-specific infOIUlation regarding topography and its effects on likely dispersal
by this species. In addition, "dispersal habitat" as defined by the USFWS in the recovery
plan and the re-proposed critical habit<\t designation, as cited in the SEIR, must be barrier
nee and "at least 90m (300 ft) wide:" The access point shown in the SEIR that allows
CRLF dispersal across 66 acres of" dispersal habitat" is a narrow farm road with a very
steep grade that is less than 20 feet wide and does not meet the USFWS definition. In the
SEIR, H. T. Harvey & Associates is cited as cOJ:lcluding "that primary constituent elements
of CRLF critical habitat are present OJ:lor adjacent to the Dublin Ranch West <!rea". H. T.
Harvey & Associates' conclusion was based on a 300-foot wide corridor of dispersal
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~.
habitat on the northern border of the project site along a gently sloping drainage. While it
is possible that a few individual access or even disperse across portions of the upland
habitat on the Dublin West site, it is not "dispersal habitat" In our opinion, the loss of
potential upland dispersal habitat for CRLF is not a significant impact uilder CEQA.
The Biological Opinion (BO) for Dublin Ranch, issued by the USFWS on July 1, 2002, 4.1.14'
identifies the Tassajara creek Open Space as one of the mitigation sites for impacts to
CRLF fiom the'Dublin Ranch project and describes the activities that are expected to occur
within and adjacent to the Open Space area. The BO acknowledges potential future
impacts to CRLF habitat from a future housing development planned immediately to the
west of the Tassajara Creek Open Space and two road crossings over Tassajara Creek
through the Open Space area. However, it seems clear that the USFWS thought that
implementation of the Tassajara Creek Open Space management plan wonld not only serve
to mitigate (irl part) Dublin Ranch project impacts, but also to provide adequate protection
for CRLP using this reach of Tassajara Creek. In our opinion, because the existing
TaSsajara Creek Open Space management plan provides. protection for the primary
dispersal avenues for CRLP On the site, no mitigation for the loss of upland disperSal
habitat for the CRLF should be necessary.
However, if the City insists that impacts to CRLF dispersal habitat are significant and 4.1.15
require mitigation,,it is our opinion that on-site improvements to promote dispersal of
CRLP to points west of the site would benefit CRLF more than the off-site mitigation
proposed by SM BIO-8. The applicant could enhance the drainage along the northern
boundary of Dublin RaDch West Project Site to provide better connectivity between the
aquatic' habitats to the west and Tassajara Creek. This drainage within the project site
would be maintained as open space and managed to support dispersal of CRLP.. This
drainage would be enhanced by constructing micro-topographical depressions or temporary
poneling areas, and/or improvillg habitat for foraging and refuge, planting native vegetation
(i.e., willows), adding downed woody debris and natural rocks to be used as refugia by
CRLF.
.. SM-BIO-9, pages 1-11 and 1-12 (also page 67): In the sentence, "If CRLP are found 4.1.16
within the construction areas (or other sensitive wildlife species), they shall be immediately
moved to undisturbed, preserved portions of Tassajara Creek if authorized in a biological
opinion issued by the USPWS for the project", the "other sensitive wildlife species" phrase
requires clarification. Depending on whether or not such species are listed, they mayor
may not be addressed in a BO. The "other sensitive wildlife species", which are also
referred to on page 1-12, that would require relocation should be identified specifically.
. SM-BIO-9, page 1-12 (also page 67): We recommend that the statement "A biologist with 4.1.17
appropriate permits to relocate any CRLF __" should be revised to read "A qualified
biologist with appropriate authorization to relocate CRLF in conjunction with a biological
opinion. . ." The USFWS does not issue general permits to allow biologists to relocate
CRLF; rather, this authorization would be granted on a project-~pecific basis in conjunction
with a BO.
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ImpactBIO-3 (Br~eding Birds):
· SM-BIO-ll, page 1-14 (also page 68): In our opinion, impacts to nests of common birds 4.1.18
are not significant impacts l.Ulder CEQA; these are regulatory compliance issues (e.g.,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, CDPG code), not CEQA issUf's, While pre-conruuctÎon
surveys for compliance with such regulations are advisable, they should be dealt with
separately from CEQA compliance.
· 8M~BIO-ll, page 1-14 (also page 68): If the City msists on retainiug SM BIO-H, We 4.1.19
recommeud that the statement that a hreediug bird survey shall be conducted "throughout
the Dublin Ranch West area" be revised to read "throughout the development portiori of the
Project area" as indicated later in BIO-l 1; except in the case of Golden Eagles (which are
not known to nest OP the Dublin Ranch West site), no nest surveys should be required in
portions of the Project area >250 feet from proposed development.
· 8M-BIG-II, page 1-14 (also page 68): We recommend that in the sentepce, "All activities 4.1.20'
shall be prohibited within the buffer until after YOUllg have fledged and moved out of the
Pest", the word "and" be replaced with "and/or". The Killdeer (CharadriU$ vociftros), one
species for which habitat may actually be temporarily enhanced by construction~related
disturbance due to its preference for sparsely vegetated habitats and its moderate tolerance
of human activity, could possibly pest on the site during construction; because this species'
pi"ecocial young leave the nest soon after hatching (but long before fledging), there is no
need for the buffer around a Killdeer 'nest to remain in place aftei the young have hatched
and left the nest area.
Impact BIO-6 (Special-Status Plants):
. Topic/Supplemental Impact, page 1-19 (also page 70): The "Topic/Supplemental Impact" 4.1.21
should read "Biological Resources. Loss of Congdon's tarplant" since this is the only plant
species considered to be of special status by the City known'to be present on this site.
. 8M~BIO-15, page l-l9 (also page 70): It is our opinion that thelossof approximately 630 A.1.22
individual Congdon's tarplants does not constitute a significant impact under- CEQA given
the fairly widespread occurrence and abundance of the species. The tarplant is known to
occur in sizeable numbers in the Dublin-Livermore area (e.g., 240,000 individuals
estimated On Camp Parks immediately adjacent to Dublin Ranch West), and the loss of
approximately 630 individuals at Dublin Ranch West «0.1% of a regional population of
over 700,000 plants) would not be significan1 to the overall population. We recommend
that this impact, and Mitigation Measure 8M-Bra-IS, be deleted.
If the City msists that mitigation be provided for impacts to Congdon's tarplant, we believe 4.1.23
that mitigation performed on Ibe basis of the number of individuals impact,ed would be
more appropriate than on the acreage of occupied habitat impacted given the fact that Ibe
majority of individual plants to be impacted (about 500) are scattered at low densities over
approximately 4 acres south of the existing residence on the site; the remaining individuals
~.
1
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to be impacteä occur iu small areas west of Tassajara Creek. Protocol-level surveys
couducted by HTH in September 2002, with follow-up surveys in 2003, revealed five
subpopulatlons within the Tassajara Creek Management Zone (TCMZ) that average
approximately 500 individuals on 0.5 acres each. Thus, the "largest" impact area, in terms
of acreage, may be a low-quality site due to the low density of plants found in this 4-acre
area, and it is our opinion that mitigation within the TCMZ can achieve densities similar to
those currently occurring in the TCMZ; only approximately 0.63 acres of mitigation land
euhancement, seeding, and management would be needed to provide habitat for an
additional 630 individual plants.
In 2003, prior to det=-ining that impacts to Congdon's tarplants on Dublin Ranch West 4.1.24
should be considered less than significant due to the size of the regional population, Hili
prepared a draft Mitigation and Monitoriug Plan describiug the establishment and
mauagement of Congdon's tarplants on approximately 0.8 acres surrounding an existing
tarplant subpopulation within the TCMZ; an updated dIaft version of this plan is attllched
to this memo. If the City insists that mitiglltion be provided for impacts to Congdon's
tarplant, we recommend that SM-BfO-15 be revised to read, "The Dublin Ranch West
Congdon's Tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2004)
shall be implemeuted to compeusate for the removal of Congdon's tarplant individuals."
We have provided a copy of the Congdon's tarplant Mitigatiou and Monitoring Plan to
Jerry Haag, arid to Michael Josselyn at WRA We are sending two copies for your use in
processiug these comments. This plan may be accessed via our ftp site. Clicking on the
link below will take you to the HIH ftp site; open the folder named Dublin West and down
load the tarplant pdf file.
ftp://harveyftp:harvey3150(aJ209.237.26.68
Impact BIO-7 (Loss of riparian vegetation):
. H. T. Harvey & Associates has mapped the riparian vegetation along Tassajara Creek 4.1.25
(provided to WRA) and so has determined impacts of the bridges across Tassajara Creek
more precisely at 0.31 acres. This was accomplished by overlaying the bridge plans over
the riparian habitat map.
. SM-BIO-16, page 1-21 (also page 71): H. T. Harvey & Associates has developed a riparian 4.1.26
habitat mitigation and monitoriug plan for the project site. We recommend that SM-BIO-
16 be revised to read, "The Dublin Ranch West Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
(H.T. Harvey & Associates 2004) shall be implemented to compensate for the removal of
riparian vegetation subject to approval ofCDFG and the City".
We have provided a copy of the Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to Marty for
approval. We are sending 4 copies for your use in processing these comments if it meets
with his approval. This pIM may be accessed via our ftp site. Clicking on the link below
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
will take you to the HrH ftp site; open the folder named Dublin West and dowD. load the
Riparian pdf file.
ftp://harveyftp:harvev3150@)09.23726.68
Environmental Setting
,- Page 47: The sentence "The portions of the Project area has been used for cattle
grazing..." should be revised for clarity/grammar.
4.1.27
- Page 48: The sentence "The majority of the Project area is dominated by non-native
grassland that has been historically, and has been used for Evestock grazing" should be
revised for clarity/grammar.
4.1.28
. Pages 49-50: As discussed previously, it is our opinion that the reach of Tassajara Creek
located On the project site does not provide suitable breeding habitat for CIS, as this is a
very deep, strong stream with high flow volume and velocity during the winter months
when CTS are active. Surveys by HTB in 1993, 1995, and 2000 did not detect CTS in the
oUly habitat within the Tassajara Creek drainage on-site that approaches potential breeding
habitat (an isolated oxbow).
4.1.29
. Page 51: To place the impact to 630 individual ta:rplants expected to result from this
project into the appropriate context, the brief summary of the status of Congdon's tarplant
should include more information regarding the abundance of the species in the Dublin-
Livermore area (e.g., 240,000 individuals estimated On Camp Parks immediately adjacent
to Dublin Ranch West).
4.1.30
. Page 53: The document states, "HTH relocated a number ofCRLF from elsewhere On the
Dublin Ranch West portion of the Project site into Tassajara Creek.u"This sentence
should be revised to read "H11:l relocated a number of eRLF from Dublin Ranch into
Tassajara Creek____" - no relocation of CRLP from the Dublin Ranch West project area
itselfhas been undertaken by HTB.
4.1.31
. Page 56: The document states that CTS critical habitat has been designated. Critical
habitat for this species has been proposed, but the designation has not yet been approved.
4.1.32
. Page 56: The document states that no larval surveys for CTS have been conducted in
Tassajara Creek within the Dublin Ranch West area, and that larval surveys conducted in
this drainage by HrH were "downstream of this site". As S\llI1I larized in reports provided
to WRA, BTB conducted surveys for CIS and suitable habitat in the Tassajara Creek
drainage on the Dublin Ranch west site in 1993, ·1995, and 2000. Tassajara Creek is a very
deep, strong stream with high flow volume and velocity during the winter months when
CTS are active, and it is our opinion (supported by multiple surveys) that this creek does
not provide breeding habitat for CTS. As a result, CIS Jarval surveys were focused on the
ouly habitat within the Tassajara Creek drainage that approaches potential breeding habitat
4.1.33
~-
I
;t"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
(an isolated oxbow). No evidence of CTS breeding was found in this area or elsewhere in
Tassajara Creek.
Supplemental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
. Page 60: Effective 7 September 2004, the CEQA Guidelines §15065 were revised to add 4.1.34
the term "substantially" before the phrase "reduce the number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare, or threatelled species. __" for a mandatory fuJding of significance.
. Page 66: The document states that due to the loss of upland ,habitat west of Tassajara ·4.1.35
Creek as a result of this project, "CRLF populations in Tassajara Creek are further isolated
from potential breeding locations northwest and southwest of the Dublin Rmlch West
area". Because the primary dispersal corridors for CRLF between Tassajara Creek and
areas to the west (i.e., Tassajara Creek itself and the drainage in the Conservation Area on
the northern edge of the site) have been enhanced (i.e., the TCMZ) or could be enhanced as
described above (i.e., the drainage On the northern edge of the site), CRLF in Tassajara
Creek will not be isolated fiom areas to the west due to the löss of upland dispersal habitat
that is likely infrequelltly used by CRLF.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
ECOLOGICAL CONSUL TANTS
MEMORANDUM
TO;
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Martin Inderbiu:enlConnie G4:>ldade
JeffWilldnsonIRon Duke
30 December 2004
Dublin Ranch West - Additional Supporting Information for Response to
Comments on Dl:'aft SEIR
In our memo dated 1 December 2004, we described some of our continuing concerns about the
DSEIR for Dublin Ranch West then in public circulation. At your request, we are providing
additional supporting information concerning the California tiger salamander (CrS) and
California red-legged fiog (CRLF).
California Tiger Salamander
SM-BIO-3, page 1-5 (also pages 63 and 64 and Table 6): The DSEIR states in several places
that crs may breed in Tassajara Creek, and that further surveys should be conducted in the
creek. In our opinion, further surveys for CTS in Tassajara Creek should not be necessary for
the following reasons:
. HTH conducted surveys for special-status reptiles and amphibians in the Tassajara Creek
drainage on the Dublin Ranch west site on 10 March, 1 May, and 27 May 1993 and on 6,
26, and 28 May 1995, as summarized in "Dublin Ranch: SpecialcStatus Amphibian and
Reptile Surveys" (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1993) and "Dublin Ranch: 1995 Special-
Status Amphibian and Reptile Surveys" (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1996). Copies of
both of these reports have been provided to WRA, and we will provide them to the City
as well. These surveys were conducted by an experienced herpetologist, Dr. Mark
Jennings, who used his best professional judgment to conduct habitat assessments to
determine potential CTS breeding habitat. He determined that Tassajara Creek itself was
not potential breeding habitat (for the reasons described below). Therefore, CTS larval
surveys were Jocused on the only habitat within Tassajara Creek that approaches
potential breeding habitat (an isolated oxbow). No evidence ofCrS breeding was found
in this area or elsewhere in Tassajara Creek.
. Tassajara Creek is a very incised, strong stream with high flow volume and velocity
during the winter months when CTS are active. MacKay & Somps have calculated that .
the expected flow during a 2-year event (accepted by CDFO as representative of typical
flow) through the reach of Tassajara Creek on the Dublin Ranch West site would be
San Jose Office
31 ~O Almaden Expressway, S~te 145
San Jose, CA 95118.408-448-9450. 1!Bx: 408-448-9454
4.1.36
4.1.37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
approximately 770 cubic feet per second, at a minimum depth of 5 feet (2003 Draft
Tassajara Creek Drainange Analysis for Dublin Ranch West (Wallis Property), City of
Dublin, County of Alameda). Such high flow volume and velocity in Tassajara Creek is
not conducive to the breeding biology of CTS, which require lentic habitats (i.e., non-
flowing pools), or at most gentle flow, during the winter and early spring breeding
season. Even lower flow volUßle and velocity in Tassajara Creek than the 2-year event
calculated by MacKay & Somps would still not allow for successful deposition of
sperulatophores by the males or of fertilized eggs by the females; all would be washed
downstream due to the flows. If successful fertilization and hatching of the eggs were
even to occur (e.g., during a protracted period of little rainfall), the larvae would be
susceptible to the high flows and again would be washed downstream. CTS do not breed
in highly lotic (stream type) environments such as Tassajara Creek for this reason.
· Because Jeff Dreier from WRA had reported the presence ofCTS breeding in a stream. in 4.1.38
the Dublin area, we searched the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) to
further analyze the possibility of CTS breeding in streams such as Tassajara Creek. A
total of 809. occurrence records were searched, of which 258 records between 1961 and
2004 were fiom Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Of these 258 records, 140 records
documented breeding by indicating the presence of larvae and/or eggs. Of these 140
records, 109 were from artificially constructed ponds (stockponds, beruled springs or
drainages to create ponds), 15 were fiom natural ponds, 11 were from vernal pools, three
were fiom seasoilal wetlands, and two did not indicate breeding habitat. No record
indicated that breeding occurred within a stream or natural drainage.
· In the USFWS "Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, 4.1.39
Central Population; Proposed Rule" (Federal Register 69:48570-48649), the primary
constituent element for breedi11g "based on our current knowledge of the life history,
biology, and ecology of the species..." that must be present to be considered critical
habitat is "Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and man-made (e.g., stock)
ponds, vernal pools, and other ephemeral or pennanent water bodies that typically
become inundated during winter rains and hold water for a sufficient length of time
necessary for the species to complete the aquatic portion ofits life cycle." Streams are
not included as a primary constituent element by the USFWS. The tJSFWS use best
available science in designation of Critical Habitat in accordance with the federal
Endangered Species Act.
· Exotic species known to have a significantly negative affect on CTS by preying on the 4.1.40
eggs and larval salamanders, such as mosquito fish (Gambu.sia affini$), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), and crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), are in high nUßlbers within the reach
of Tassajara Creek adjacent to the Dublin Ranch West site.
· The mainstream literature on CTS describes breeding habitat as vernal pools, seasonal 4.1.41
and perennial ponds, and possibly (but not documented) quiet pools of streams, but no
studies to date have indicated that streams with such high winter flows as Tassajara Creek
provide suitable breeding habitat for CTS. A list of the literature we have reviewed in
this regard is presented below:
o AJ1derson, P. R. 1968. The reproductive and developmental history of the
California tiger salamander. MA Thesis, Freijo State College, Fresno, California.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o Feaver, P. E, 1971. Breeding pool selection and larval mortality of three
California amphibians: Ambysloma ligrinum calijorniense Gray, Hyla regilla
Baird and Girard, and Scaphiopus hammondii Girard. MA Thesis, Fresno State
College, Fresno, California.
o Fisher, R. N. and H. R Shaffer. 1996, The decline of amphibians in California's
Great Central Valley. Conservation Biology IO:1387~1397.
o Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of
5pecial concern iD California. California tiger salamander, pp. 12-16. Final report
to California Dept. of Fish and Game Inland Fisheries Division, R.'ltlcho Cordova,
California.
o Loredo, D. Van Vuren, M. L. Morrison. 1996. Reproductive ecology of a
population of the California tjger salamander. Copeia 1996:895-901.
o Petranka, J. W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 1~587 p.
o Shaffer, H. 8., R. N. Fisher, and S. E. Stanley. 1993. Status Report: The
California tiger salamander (Ambysloma calijorniense), final report to the
California Department of Fish and Game. California Department of Fish and
Game. Sacramento, California.
o Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third
Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. .
o Storer, T. I. 1925. A synopsis of the amphibia of California. University of
California Publications in Zoology 27:1~342.
o Trenham, P. C., H. B. Shaffer, W. D. Koenig, and M. R. Stromberg 2000. Life
history and demographic variation in the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma
tigrinum). Copeia. 2000:365-377.
o Twitty, V. C. 1941. Data on the life history of Ambysloma tigrinum calijorniense
Gray. Copeia 1941:14.
o Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K. E. Mayer (editors). 1988.
California's Wildlife. Volume 1. Amphibians and Reptiles. California Statewide
Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento, California.
. In S"t'nm"ry, it is our best professional opinion, based on a thorough review of the 4.1.42
literature and of CNDDB records regarding the biology of the CTS, the high flows in
Tassajara Creek during the winter months, and our experience with and knowledge of the
biology of the CTS that Tassajara Creek does not provide suitable breeding habitat for
this species.
~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Califomia Red-legged FJ:og
SM-BIO-8, page 1-10 (also pages 53-54 and 66-67): The DSEIR emphasizes that CRLF can
leave the drainage and therefore will disperse across the project site. While we agree .that CRLF
couId leave the Tassajara Creek drainage in a few areas (e.g., at the farm road crossing and more
gently sloped areas) where the topography might allow such egress, we believe that most
movement by CRLF in the area will be via the drainage itself, and that use of the upland areas On
the Dublin West site by CRLF is likely very limited for the reasons below:
· Except for the few areas where CRLF may exit the Tassajara Creek riparian zone onto 4.1.43
the Dublin West site, most of the western bank is a vertical wail of over 20 feet, making it
extremely difticuIt (ifnot impossible) for CRLF to access the Dublin West site except at
these less sloped areas. Therefore, CRLF couId not readily exit from known areas of fiog
residence in the Tassajara Creek zone onto the Dublin West site.
. A recent study of terrestrial habitat use by CRLF in coastal forest and grassland has 4.1.44
suggested that an essential component of the habitat is the presence of concealing cover,
such as shrubs, herbs, woody debris, rootballs, small recesses in vertical banks, and forest
floor litter (Bulger, J D., N. J. Scott, Jr., R. B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and
conservation of aduIt California red-legged frogs Rana aurora draytonU in coastal forests
and grasslands. Biological Conservation 110:85-95). 1bis concealing cover is necessary
to protect the CRLF from desiccation and predation during the frequent periods of
inactivity while dispersing overland. While ground squin'el burrows may provide such
concealing cover in the East Bay region, the Dublin West site lacks this essential
component in the flat areas near Tassajara Creek that wouId be necessary for the kind of
upland habitat use/dispersal described in the DSEIR. Dispersing frogs (aduIts and
juveniles) from Tassajara Creek wouId therefore be subject to desiccation and predation
due to the lack of concealing cover.
· Additionally, the Bulger et aI. (2003) study was conducted in a more mesic coastal area 4.1.45
of Santa Cruz County, where the risk of desiccation by CRLF dispersing into upland.
areas wouId not be nearly as great as in the dry East Bay. We have hundreds of hours of
personal e¡c;perience with CRLE both in mesic coastal sites and drier inland areas (such as
Dublin), and we have observed a markedly higher tendency toward upland dispersal in
the mesic coastal areas than on the drier East Bay sites such as Dublin West. In fact, it is
reported in the USFWS "Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-
legged Frog (Raila aurora draytoni¡J" (Federal Register 69:19620-19642) that "the
majority of California red-legged frogs observed in eastern Contra Costa County spent
the entire wet season within streamside habitat (T. Tatarian, in litt. 2000)", further
indicating that CRLP in dry areas such as Dublin are likely to make little use of upland
areas similar to the Dublin West site.
· If the "upland dispersal habitat" depicted in the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Dublin 4.1.46
Ranch West Pr(Jject were being used by CRLF dispersing between Tassajara Creek and
known aquatic habitat west of the site, as the DSEIR states, then individuals should have
been detected in the trap array installed for CTS along the entire western boundary of the
Dublin West site during the 2003/2004 winter season. 1bis argument is strengthened by
the ,fact that 586 postmetarnorphic frogs (aduIts, subadults and juveniles) and 1,973
tadpoles were placed in Tassajara Creek during the ~er of 2003 prior to opening the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
traps for the winter rains. Overland dispersal by CRLF occurs most actively during the
early rains of winter (Bulger et al. 2003), and therefore, if the translocated CRLF were
dispersing over the Dublin Ranch West site, they should have been intercepted by the
trap array when it was operatioual (beginning with the first rains in October 2003). The
only &nphibians detected by the trap array were CTS, yellow-eyed salamanders
(E1Zsati1Za escMcholtziz), and Pacific treetrogs (Hy/a regilla), even though one site in
Tassajara Creek where 342 postmetamorphic frogs and 1,968 tadpoles were translocated
is ouly 350 feet ITom the trap array.
· The drainage on the northern edge of the site currently provides a dispersal corridor for 4.1.47
CRLF that might disperse between Tassajara Creek and areas to the west of Dublin
Ranch West (e.g., Camp Parks). In fact, CRLF are likely to use this drainage for
dispersal far more than they would use the upland portions of the Dublin Ranch West site
due to a gentler slope out of the Tassajara Creek drainage, the presence of concealing
cover within and near the drainage north of the site, and moisture within this drainage.
· In sununary, we expect CRLF in Tassajara Creek to leave the drainage and disperse onto 4.1.48
Or across the upland area west of the creek only on rare occasions, and the upland
portions of the site do not represent important habitat for this species. Even if egress
from the Tassajara Creek drainage were not constrained by the topography of the creek,
adult CRLF would be expected to leave the drainage only during brief foraging bouts
during the wet season and stay within the proposed buffer zone along the creek. We do
not believe the Dublin West site to represent a migratory corridor between Tassajara
Creek and known CRLF aquatic $ites further west on the Camp Parks property. Juveniles
disperse more widely over uplánd areas than adults, but on this particular site, juveniles
are expected to di$perse primarily along Tassajara Creek due to the topography,
availability of cover, and level of moisture. It is our best professional opinion, based on
the site's topography, the dry nature of the upland areas on the site, the paucity of
concealing cover in the upland areas of the site, the high quality of CRLF habitat along
Tassajara Creek itself, the presence of a suitable dispersal corridor immediately north of
the site, and the lack of any captures of CRLF dispersing across the uplands by the CTS
trapping array present during the winter of 200312004, that this project will not result in a
significant impact to dispersal by CRLF.
~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Comment 2.1: State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
· Comment 2.1.1: Since current traffic volumes should be used whenever
possible, 2002 data for Interstate 580 should be replaced with more current
2003 volwne data which is available from the Department.
Response: The Transportation and Circulation Environmental Setting portion
of the DSEIR (page 93), is hereby amended by reference to read as follows:
"Interstate 580 is an eighHane east-west freeway that cormects Dublin with
local cities such as Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional origins and
destinations such as Oakland, Haywood and Tracy. In the vicinity of the
proposed Project, 1-580 carried between 186,000 and 198,000 vehicles per day
(vpd) in 2003, based on Caltrans' Traffic Volumes jOr State Highways. 1-580 has
interchanges at Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara
Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road/EI Charro Road."
· Comment 2.1.2: A hydrology /hydraulic study should be prepared for the
Department to determine project-related impacts on 100-year flow rates and
flow conditions at the I-580/Tassajara Road interchange. Project related
drainage impacts should be evaluated and mitigation recommended where
appropriate since the 100-year FEMA maps show the intersection of 1-580 and
Tassajara Creek being subject to flooding. The project should include
measures to reduce post-development flow rates to existing values.
Response: The hydrology /hydraulic analysis prepared for the project by the
applicant's engineer will be forwarded to Caltrans based on their request.
Based on City of Dublin ordinances and development standards as well as the
most recent C.3 stormwater quality standards enforced by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, development projects will be limited in the
quantity of storm water leaving respective sites. Therefore, it is uruikely that
development of the Dublin Ranch West site would increase flooding on the 1-
580 freeway where the freeway intersects Tassajara Creek.
· Comment 2.1.3: Development fees would be used to improve drainage
infrastructure impacted by the project. Drainage improvements should
include supplernenting cross culverts under the freeway that have been
overtaxed by unmitigated development.
Response: Future development on the project site will be subject to local and
regional drainage fees imposed by the City of Dublin and Zone 7. Upgrading
of existing overtaxed culverts is beyond the scope of the Dublin Ranch West
project.
· Comment 2.1.4: Work that encroaches into a state right-of-way requires an
encroachment permit issued by Caltrans.
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page '0
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response: Necessary encroaclunent permits will be obtained from Caltrans if
required.
Comment 2.2: State of California, Office of Planning and Research
. Comment 2.2: The State Clearinghouse received the comment letter from
Caltrans after the close of the DSEIR comment period.
Response: Comment acknowledged. See responses to the Caltrans comment
letter as Comment 2.1.
Comment 3.1: Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Zone 7 (Zone 7)
· Comment 3.1.1: Development on the project site will be subject to drainage
fees imposed by Zone 7.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Payment of Zone 7 drainage fees will be
a standard condition of development approval by the City of Dublin.
· Comment 3.1.2: On page 121, Utilities and Services, storm drainage, replace
the sentence "Zone 7 is responsible for master planning" with the following:
"Zone 7 owns and maintains major storm drain channels in the Liverrnore~
Amador Valley. Zone 7 is presently working on a Stream Management Plan
to identify future channel improvements beneficial to the residents of the
Valley." Correct the sentence that reads: "Drainage on the project
area.. . connect with Zone 7 facilities south of 1-580," This should read:
"Drainage on the project area.. . connect with Zone 7 facilities north of I-580."
Zone 7 does not typically maintain culverts, as they are usually owned by
Caltrans.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
· Comment 3.1.3: On page 125, Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis, Zone 7
should be allowed to review the project hydrology and hydraulic analysis.
Response: Comment acknowledged. The City of Dublin Public Works
department will transmit a copy of the hydrology and hydraulic analysis to
Zone 7 for review and comment.
· Commerlt 3.1.4: Zone 7's Salt Management Plan does not include
demineralizing shallow groundwater and reinjecting it into the groundwater
basin. Instead, it includes blending demineralization of a portion of produced
groundwater with other water supplies for delivery to customers. Also,
delete the word "water" from the term "salt-water." Make other corrections
to wording involving the Salt Management Plan.
DUblin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 11
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
. Comment 3.1.5: In the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the Initial
Study (page 39) it should be noted that all Mitigation Measures required by
the Eastern Dublin EIR will require input from Zone 7 prior to
implementation.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Development of the Dublin Ranch West
project, if approved by the City of Dublin, will be required to comply with
Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures.
. Comment 3.1.6: On page 51 of the Initial Study it should be noted that Zone 7
is a water wholesaler and does not serve the project directly. Zone 7 does not
own or maintain any stonn drain facilities within the project area. Also,
correct the wording "new storm drainage facilities which would cormect to
existing facilities maintained and controlled by Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7" with "new storm drain
facilities, which would connect to existing facility owned and maintained by
Zone 7."
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
Comment 3.2: East Bay Regional Park District
. Comment 3.2: The proposed project would not be consistent with the
District's 1997 Master Plan. The Master Plan located the Tassajara Creek
Regional Trail along the ridge in the eastern vicinity of Parks RFTA and then
proceeding northward towards Mt. Diablo State Park. The proposed project
would locate the Regional Trail in a corridor between two areas proposed for
low and medium density residential development. The Draft SEIR is
inadequate because it does not address significant impacts associated with the
lack of consistency with the Master Plan and the impacts from changing the
existing open space to residential development adjacent to the regional trail
corridor.
Response: Based upon discussions between the East Bay Regional Park District
staff, City of Dublin staff and the applicant for development of the Dublin
Ranch West project, it was understood that the Park District supported a
change to show the Regional Trail along the Tassajara Creek corridor, which
would be consistent with the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
In any event, the proposed Dublin Ranch West project does not change the
original Park District regional trail location, but allows more flexibility for the
District to provide an alternative location for the proposed regional trail.
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page '2
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The City of Dublin believes the 1993 Eastem Dublin EIR adequately
addressed the potential impacts of future trails adjacent to Tassajara Creek as
shown in Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City has not identified any specific
impacts with the requested land use change that would replace existing open
space uses with Low Density Residential uses further to the west on the
Dublin Ranch West property.
Conunent 3.3: Dublin San Ramon Services District
· Comment 3.3.1: The District notes that the proposed project would create a
demand for approximately 320,000 gallons per day of potable water. Because
of planning done by the District in cooperation with the City, tills additional
demand is identified in the District's Urban Water Management Plan. In 2004,
the District completed a "Water Supply Analysis and Water Supply
Assessment" for the proposed project in accord with the Agreement to Settle
Water Litigation dated November 1999.
The District notes that it has adequate water supplies to meet the increased
demand for the proposed project. A portion of tills demand would be met
through extension of recycled water pipelines to the project site. Potable
water pipelines must also be extended to the site. Coordination with the
District must occur with regard to pipeline sizes and locations and to ensure
that there is no interference with regard to existing District facilities.
No mitigation is necessary to obtain water supplies for tills project.
Response: Comment acknowledged and no further response is needed.
· Comment 3.3.2: The District requires all new development to use recycled
water. A portion of the proposed Dublin Ranch West project would fall into
tills category. A maximum expected average day demand of approximately
104,300 gallons per day would be needed for irrigation. The District's Water
Master Plan indicates use of approximately 132,900 gallons per day of
recycled water. The District's Water Master Plan will be updated to reflect the
latter figure.
Response: Comment acknowledged and no further response is needed.
· Comment 3.3.3: The District has included anticipated increased wastewater
flows from the Project into District and LA VWMA treatment and disposal
facilities. Providing wastewater collection, treatment and export services is
dependent on project compliance with District Codes and implementing the
District Master Plan, policies and ordinances.
The District has included the Project area in its Master Plan, so the Project
may receive sewer service £rom the District and sanitary sewer lines must be
extended to the Project site. Facilities must be constructed by the project
applicant and dedicated to the District. Coordination with the District must
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page,3
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
occur with regard to pipeline sizes and locations and to ensure that there is no
interference with regard to existing District facilities.
Response: Comment acknowledged and no further response is needed.
Comment 3.4: Alameda County Public Works Agency
· Corrunent 3.4.1: Exhibit 16 shows a future Tassajara Road realignment.
Transitions will be needed within the current project limits.
Response: Comment acknowledged. The issue of roadway design and
transitions will be dealt with at the subdivision and improvement plan stage
of the Project, which will come after consideration of the currently requested
land use entitlements and the DSEIR by the City of Dublin.
· Comment 3.4.2: An evaluation should be made on construction impacts to
adjacent County roads.
Response: It is anticipated that construction vehicles and material trucks would
access the Project site via Tassajara Road which is in the City of Dublin.
Minimal, if any, construction impacts are anticipated to other County roads.
· Comment 3.4.3: The DSEIR should evaluate impacts to existing County roads
due to increased traffic. Potential traffic calming requirements rnay be needed
for County roads.
Response: The Transportation and Circulation section of the DSEIR (Impact
TRA-2) notes that Project impacts to local roadways will be no greater than
were analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin ElR.
· Comment 3.4.4: Roadway improvements should be made in the area
between the jurisdictional boundary line and the most southerly limits of the
project. This area has been subject to previous incidents due to limited
shoulder area, motorist speed and reaction time for motorists. Since this
section of the roadway has a curvilinear alignment, it is critical that road
design standards and improvements be considered beyond the frontage of
the road.
Response: Comment noted and this comment does not relate to an
environmental impact caused by the proposed Project. The corrunenter's
request has been transmitted to the Dublin Public Works Department for
consideration.
· Comment 3.4.5: Regarding the future alignment of Tassajara Road and Fallon
Road, it is important for right-of-way dedication to the ultimate alignment of
this roadway.
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 14
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response: Comment acknowledged. The issue of roadway design and right-
of~way will be dealt with at the subdivision and improvement plan stage of
the Project, which will come after consideration of the currently requested
land use entitlements and the DSEIR
· Comment 3.4.6: It is suggested that a roadway conceptual plan be considered
of the surrounding area. Although not all lands westerly of Tassajara Road
are part of the proposed project, the ultimate development of this area will
undoubtedly impact surrounding parcels and roadway improvements along
Tassajara Road.
Response: The conceptual roadway alignment in the Eastern Dublin area is set
forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan adopted by the City of Dublin in
1993.
· Comment 3.4.7: Installation of a traffic signal, deceleration and acceleration
lanes, potential for on~street bikes, shoulder improvements, street lighting
and additional traffic control; signing and striping should be considered.
These improvements are further summarized in the consultant's report
attached to the DSEIR
Response: Roadway improvements as noted by the commenter will be
considered at the time subdivisions and improvements are considered by the
City of Dublin.
Comment 4.1; Martin Inderbitzen
· Comment 4.1.1: Exhibit 12 (Master Infrastructure Plan) does not illustrate
elevation Zone 2 water lines in Tassajara Road north of the primary Project
entry and in Fallon Road; DSRSD plans to have these lines placed in these
street segments.
Response: Comments acknowledged. Detailed infrastructure infonnation will
be supplied to Zone 7 prior to actual construction of the proposed project.
· Comment 4.1.2: Page 14; replace "9.7" with "3.7."
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR"
· Comment 4.1.3: Page 18, under Utility Services, replace "westerly" with
"easterly."
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR"
· Comment 4.1.4: Page 91, first line of page, replace "550" with "428."
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 15
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
. Comment 4.1.5: Page 141, first line of 5.4, Altemative 3, replace "8.7" with
"7.8.'1
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
. Comment 4.1.6: On October 5,2004, the Dublin City Council held a workshop
to discuss the Project, including potential locations and sizes of neighborhood
parks. The Council selected an option, which would provide 7.66 acres of
neighborhood parkland and 1.04 acres of Neighborhood Park that would be
located on an adjacent parcel. This option also included 1.2 acres of land that
could be devoted to either publici semi public or neighborhood park use. The
City Council accepted the fact that some neighborhood park acreage could be
moved off site if needed. Therefore, the Mitigation Measure PARK-l is
recommended to be changed as follows:
PARK-I: Prior to tentative map or Stage 2 Development Plan approval,
whichever occurs first, the Project developer shall:
a)
Revise the land use program for the Dublin Ranch West site to
provide an additional 1.04 net acres of Neighborhood Park land
use designation in lieu of a publici semi-public use; or
Pay in lieu fees for required Neighborhood Park acres.
b)
Response: Based on the commenter's request, the City of Dublin proposes to
modify Supplemental Mitigation Measure PARK-l as follows. The mitigation
measure is also recommended to be changed based on an inaccuracy
discovered in the DSEIR, in that the anticipated deficiency in the amount of
neighborhood parkland on the Project site would be 1.9 acres and not 1.04
acres as identified in the DSEIR.
"PARK 1: As outlined below. the Proiect developer sha]]:
a)
Revise the land use program for the Dublin Ranch West site to
provide an additional 1.9 net acres of Neighborhood Park land
use designation in lieu of a public I semi-public use: or
As part of the Project Pre-Annexation Agreement. pay fees to
the City of Dublin to compensate for the loss of 1.9 acres of
Nei hborho n e Pro'ect s' 11 be e ual
to e neighborhood park in-lieu fee amount ('barged to
developers who do not have parkJand on their prouerty as set
by the DubJin Community Facility Fee report in effect at the
time of subdivision map recording. Fees shall be due at the time
of final subdivision map recordation."
b)
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 16
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Comment 4.1.7: Page 135, first paragraph after Supplemental Impact PARK-I,
and revise '7.66 acres "with" 6.8 acres."
RespollSe: This comment is noted and the DSEIR is corrected by reference to
read "6.8 acres." This revision is reflected in the section of the FSEIR entitled
"Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
· Comment 4.1.8: The commenter does not believe the Biological Resource
section of the DSEIR adequately considers the beneficial impact of the
Tassajara Creek Management Zone for its unique beneficial effects on wildlife
potentially impacted by the proposed Project. If the DSEIR were to consider
this area as part of the environmental baseline, the document would then
conclude that Project impacts to California Red-Legged Frog would be
reduced to a level of insignificance. The Management Zone must be
considered in conjunction with the Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service dated 7/1/02 as well as the Project Area Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan prepared by H.T. Harvey and other related documents.
Response: It is recognized that the Tassajara Creek Management Zone
protects and benefits CRLF breeding habitat and adjacent uplands; however,
it does not protect upland dispersal habitat connecting Camp Parks CRLF
populations with Tassajara Creek. Dispersal habitat is recognized by the U.s.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as one of the primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for the CRLF. Critical habitat has been designated for the
project site.
The commenter implies that the Service has already considered impacts to
CRLF dispersal habitat on the Dublin Ranch West project in the Service's
Biological Opinion (2002) prepared for the Dublin Ranch project. However,
the Biological Opinion does not reach any conclusions on the Dublin Ranch
West project and only mentions under cumulative impacts that this project,
along with 40 other potential development projects in Contra Costa and
Alameda Counties, threatens habitat for the CRLF and CTS. The Biological
Opinion does not include any incidental take authorization for loss of
individuals on the Dublin Ranch West project nor does it consider any
mitigation for loss of CRLF dispersal habitat.
The Tassajara Creek Open Space Management Plan does not provide
protection of a dispersal corridor through the Dublin Ranch West site
between CRLF populations at Camp Parks and Tassajara Creek.
· Comment 4.1.9: The wording of BIO-l (b) should be modified to describe a
salvage plan for California Tiger Salamander (CTS) rather than exclusively a
trapping plan. BIO-2 should also be modified to delete the description of the
existing passive exclusion barrier for permanent use.
Response: In response to the commenter's request and based on further
review of potential CTS impacts, SM-BIO-l is revised as follows. Deletions are
struck through and additions underlined.
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 17
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"A CIS management plan shall be developed by the Project proponents, and
approved by the City of Dublin in consultation with CDFG and the USFWS,
prior to construction activities. This measure shall also apply to construction
of recreational trails in preserved areas. Ihe Plan will detail how CIS will be
managed before and during construction activities and will include the
following:
a) Installation of a temporary herpetological fence prior to any ground
disturbance around the entire development footprint, which shall
prevent CIS from entering the construction site and shall rernain until
the permanent fence or barrier is installed. The existing of tRe current
one-way barrier, if approved by the USFWS, is a functioning
temporary barrier: however. it is not located around the entire
development footprint. is e¡¡tenEleEl aRd approved fef ,lSe by the
USF\^.'¡¡ (¡¡}AM ¡HO 2). A maintenance schedule shall be included for
this fencing.
b) A salvage trapping and releeaäem plan that details how aestivating
CTS individuals will be adequately relocated from the development
footprint and into permanently preserved suitable aestivation habitat.
Although the existing one-way exclusion barrier will allow migrating
breeding adults to exit the prQject area, non-breeding adults and
juveniles may not migrate to potential breeding sites for one or more
years. Salvage of these individuals should be accelerated by
installation of trap arrays near burrow concentrations."
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BI0-2 is also revised as follows:
" A permanent herpetological fence or barrier shall be installed around the
entire development footprint following construction activities to prevent
movement of CTS into the development area. Such fencing shall be designed
to allow for movement of larger terrestrial wildlife species, but shall preclude
CTS from climbing the fence. "Wi1;R V!!ìF'VS appro'¡;1l, ¡he SRe way barrier
currently in J31aee æay 6C c¡(tcndcà IS !'fleet 1;Àis mitigatisFl re! :l£remeflt."
. Comment 4.1.10: The DSEIR states that CTS may breed in Tassajara Creek
and that further surveys should be conducted in the creek. Based on previous
surveys conducted by H.T. Harvey, no evidence of CTS breeding was found
in Tassajara Creek and further surveys are not necessary.
Response: Nocturnal CIS surveys conducted in 1993, 1995, and 2000 did not
find salamanders; however, a significant number were trapped in 2003/2004
in upland habitat in which those surveys were conducted. Since other
amphibians successfully breed in Iassajara Creek, it is possible that conditions
exist that provide suitable breeding habitat at least in years when there are
few significant storm events. Evidence presented suggests that CTS breeding
in Tassajara Creek would be an extremely rare event and additional larval
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 18
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
approved mitigation measures for the project, and actions employees should
take if a sensitive species is encountered. This measure shall also apply to
construction of recreational trails in preserved areas."
· Comment 4.1.13: Regarding Impact SM BIO-S, movement by California Red-
Legged Frogs (CRLF) would be in the drainage area of the creek and not in
adjacent upland areas. The description of the upland dispersal for CRLF relies
too heavily on definitions provided by critical habitat rulings rather than site-
specific information regarding topography. In the commenter's opinion, the
loss of potential upland habitat dispersal is not a significant impact under
CEQA.
Response: The Oty agrees that CRLF living in Tassajara Creek would likely
spend most of their time in the drainage and not use the upland portions of
the Dublin Ranch West area. However, the potential for CRLF to use upland
portions of the site exists and CEQA requires that any project that affects or
potentially affects a listed or protected species results in a mandatory finding
of significant effect. The commenter acknowledges that it is possible that a
few individuals may access and disperse across portions of the Dublin West
site, yet states that the site is not "dispersal habitat." According to the USFWS,
the healthiest CRLF populations persist as a collection of subpopulations that
exchange genetic information through individual dispersal events. CRLF can
move to and from populations to the west. The proposed project would
further fragment potential dispersal habitat.
· Comment 4.1.14: The Biological Opinion (BO) for the Dublin Ranch project,
issued by the USFWS on 7/01/02, identified the Tassajara Creek Open Space
area as a mitigation site for the Dublin Ranch project and described the
activities expected to occur within and adjacent to the Open Space area. The
BO acknowledges future potential development on the Dublin Ranch West
site as well as two creek crossings. It seems clear the USFWS thought that
implementation of the Tassajara Creek Open Space Management Plan would
serve to mitigate impacts to the Dublin Ranch project as well as provide
adequate protection for CRLF using this reach of Tassajara Creek. Based on
this, the commenter does not believe mitigation for loss of upland dispersal is
necessary.
Response: The Biological Opinion for Dublin Ranch does not specifically
address habitat impacts and mitigation associated with the loss of upland
dispersal habitat at the Dublin Ranch West site.
· Comment 4.1.15: If the Oty insists that impacts to CRLF dispersal habitat are
significant and require mitigation, on-site improvements to promote
dispersal of CRLF to points west of the Project site would benefit CRLF more
than the off-site mitigations proposed in SM-BIO-S. The applicant could
enhance the drainage along the northern boundary of the Project site to
provide better connectivity between aquatic habitats to the west and
Tassajara Creek. The drainage within the Project site would be maintained as
open space and managed to support CRLF dispersal. The drainage could be
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 20
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
enhanced by providing micro-topographic depressions or temporary ponds
and/ or improving habitat for foraging and refuge, planting native vegetation
(such as willows), and adding downed woody debris and natural rocks.
Response: The Gty's consulting biologist notes that habitat enhancement of
proposed open space alone would not mitigate for the loss of dispersal
habitat.
. Comment 4.1.16: Regarding Supplemental Mitigation Measure BrO-9, please
clarify the wording "other sensitive wildlife species" on pages 1-11 and 1-12
and also on page 67. Depending on whether or not such species are listed,
they mayor may not be addressed in the BO. These other species should
specifically be identified.
Response: Based on further research on this topic, Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-9 is revised to read as follows:
"a) Prior to construction of the proposed bridges, a map shall be prepared
to delineate CRLF breeding habitat, construction and laydown areas,
and areas of proposed temporary fill within Tassajara Creek. Pre-
construction surveys within these areas shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist (as approved by the City) with appropriate
authorization to handle CRLF. If CRLF or CTS are found within the
construction areas (or other serwitive wildlife sfeeies), they shall be
irnmediately moved to undisturbed, preserved portions of Tassajara
Creek if authorized in a Biological Opinion or other permit issued by
the USFWS for the Project. Construction, laydown, and temporary fill
areas shall be fenced appropriately to prohibit CRLF and CTS
movement into these areas, as supervised and verified by a qualified
biologist. Construction activities and access shall be confined to these
fenced areas during construction activities. A qualified biologist will
monitor the fence and construction activities daily when construction
activities are conducted within Tassajara Creek. A q.ualified biologist
with appropriate authorization permits to relocate,my CRLF or CTS in
conjunction with a biological 0gnion shall be available to the on-site
biological monitor if CRLF or 5 (or other sel'lsiË.-:e wiìàlife ÐjOecieo)
are found within the fenced areas during daily construction
monitoring; CRLF shall be relocated to undisturbed, preserved
portions of Tassajara Creek, and ers shall be relocated to the nearest
protected upland habitat containing burrow habitat."
. Comment 4.1.17: The commenter recommends that the statement "a
biologist with appropriate permits to relocate CRLF..." should be revised to
read "a qualified biologist with appropriate authorization to relocate CRLF in
conjunction with a biological opinion." The USFWS does not issue general
permits to allow biologists to relocate CRLF; rather, this authorization would
be granted on a project-specific basis in conjunction with a BO.
Response: This comment is addressed in the Response to Comment 4.1.16.
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 2'
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Comment 4.1.18: Re: SM-BIQ-11 (pages 1-14 and 68), the commenter believes
impacts to nests of common birds are not significant under CEQA. Instead,
these are regulatory compliance issues. Although pre-construction surveys
for compliance with such regulations are advisable, they should be dealt with
separately from CEQA.
Response: The City believes the impacts identified in Supplementallmpact SM-
11 are significant under CEQA. However, based on the above comment and
further research, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-11 is revised to
read as follows:
"Prior to any tree removal or ground disturbance, a qualified biologist
(approved by the City) shall conduct special status breeding bird surveys
throughout the development ~ortion of the Proiect area and within 250 feet
in adjacent habitat~. Buffers s all be a minimum of 250 feet for raptors
(although sensitive raptorG SOleR as golden eagles. which are unlikely to nest
on the Dublin Ranch West site. may require a much larger buffer), and
between 50 and 100 feet for special status passerines depending on habitat
type (50 feet in dense vegetation, 100 feet in open areas). Pre esnsReti9F1
GHrveys sRaR talŒ ¡;laee IhrsHghoHt I'he develepm.ent portion of the Project
area, including GUrT.':eyo for grasslanel Bi£às anel èîrès l¡heIy te Rest aJ.Sftg the
Tassajara Creek corridor. Nesting status shall be monitored by a qualified
biologist to detennine when nests are no longer active. All activities shall be
prohibited within the buffer until after young have fledged andi.Qr moved
out of the nest. This measure shall also apply to construction of recreational
trails in preserved areas."
· Cornment 4.1.19: Re: SM-BIO-11 (pages 1-14 and 68), if the City insists on
retaining SM-BIO-11, the commenter recommends that the statement about a
breeding bird survey shall be conducted throughout the "Dublin Ranch West
area" be revised to read "throughout the development portion of the Project
area." Except for Golden Eagles, no nest surveys should be required in
portions of the site more than 250 feet from proposed development.
Response: Refer to Response to Comment 4.1.18.
. Comment 4.1.20: Re: SM-BIO-11 (pages 1-14 and 68), the commenter
recommends that the sentence" All activities shall be prohibited within the
buffer until after the young have fledged and moved out of the nest." The
word "and" should be replaced with "and/ or." The Killdeer could possibly
nest on the site during construction. Due to characteristics of this species,
there is no need for a buffer around a Killdeer nest to remain in place after
the young have hatched and left the nest.
Response: Refer to Response to Comment 4.1.18.
· Comment 4.1.21: On pages 1-19 and 70, the "Topic/Supplemental Impact"
should read "Biological Resources. Loss of Congdon's Tarplant," since this is
DUblin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 22
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
the only species to be considered of special status now to be present on the
site.
Response: Based on the comment and further research, the heading of
Supplemental Impact BI0-6 is revised as follows:
"Supplemental Impact BIO-6: Loss of s¡;eeial status plants Congdon's
Taq¡lant"
· Comment 4.1.22: On pages 1-19 and 70, SM-BIO-IS, the commenter believes
loss of approximately 630 individual Congdon's tarplant does not constitute a
significant impact under CEQA, given the fairly widespread occurrence and
abundance of this species. The Tarplant is known to occur in sizeable
numbers in the Livermore-Dublin area and the loss of approximately 630
plants would not be significant to the overall population. It is recommended
that Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-IS be deleted.
Response: The City notes that CEQA documents typically consider mortality
and loss of habitat to special status plants and wildlife as a significant impact.
· Comment 4.1.23: If the City insists that mitigation be provided to loss of
Congdon's tarplant, mitigation should be performed for the number of
individual plant impacts, not the acreage occupied by the species. A majority
of individual plants are scattered at low densities over approximately 4 miles
south of the existing residence; the remainder occur in small areas west of
Tassajara Creek.
Response: The City's consulting biologist agrees that mitigating the irnpact
based on the number of Congdon's Tarplant individuals impacted would be
more appropriate than on the acreage of occupied habitat. See the response
to Comment 4.1.24 for recommended changes to Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-IS.
· Comment 4.1.24: In 2003, H.T. Harvey prepared a draft Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan describing the establismnent and management of
Congdon's tarplant on approximately 0.8 acres surrounding a tarplant
subpopulation within the Tassajara Creek Management Zone. The
commenter recommends that the mitigation be revised to read: "The Dublin
Ranch West Congdon's Tarplant Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
(HTH, 2004) shall be implemented to compensate for removal of Congdon's
Tarplant individuals. "
Response: Based on additional research on this topic, Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-IS is revised to read as follows:
"The majority of COI\Wdon'S tæ::plants are scattered at low densities over
approximately four acres south of the existinw residence on the site: the
remainini' individuals to be impacted occur in smal! areas west of Tassajara
Creek. Studies conducted by H.r. Harvey & Associates have revealed five
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 23
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
subpopulations within the Tassajara Creek Management Zone (TCMZ) that
average approximately 500 individua]s on 0.5 acre each. Based on this
infonnation. the +fie project shall establish and manage approximately 0.63
acres of create eRe acre of new occupied habitat for Congdon's tarplant ier
every onc acre of CJàSRRg Cengdon's tarplant habiæ.t lest within suitable, on
site rreserred habitat (such as the TCMZ. FoIIowing CDFG and Ci1;y
approval. the Dublin Raneh West Congdon's Tar:plant Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan (HT Harv,v & Associates 2004) shall be implemented to
compensate for the loss of Congdon's tarplant individuals. project applicant
shall dc,-,clop and imr1e!ReRt a àetaikd Mitigation and Henítl3RRg Plan to
{ally ceæreflsatc for impacts to Cel'lgàen's tæplaRt. Thc plan shall ir.daàe
the mitigatien àesign, Hlett.ods of salvage of e¡ÚSRRg seed, maintenar.ce
Hlethod5 (induding weed mMlagl3!Rerlt), monitoring preceE!1ti'es aRà
performancc cRteRa; reporting requirements, aFlE! a ceRtiflgcney measure to
prcseF1.'e e¡dsting off site occupied CengE!8R' 8 tMplant habitat at an eEì¡,¡¡!l
amount tB lest Raàitat in case of mitigation failare. The project proponent
shall provide a secure funding source (such as a perfonnance bond) for the
implementation of the mitigation plan and long-tenn maintenance and
monitoring of the mitigation area. The created mitigation area must be
preserved in perpetuity (such as through a pennanent conservation
easement). The Mitigation and Monitoring Plan must be approved by the
City prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project. Mitigation shall
require a minimum of five years of monitoring and annual monitoring
reports shall be provided to the City."
· Comment 4.1.25: H.T. Harvey & Associates has mapped the riparian
vegetation along Tassajara Creek and so has determined that impacts of
bridges across Tassajara Creek more precisely at 0.31 acres. This was
detennined by overlying bridge plans over the riparian habitat map.
Response: Based on this additional infonnation, the acreage in Supplemental
Impact BIO~7 is revised from "1.0 acres" to "0.31 acres."
· Comment 4.1.26: Re SM-BIO-16 (pages 1-12 and 71), H.T. Harvey &
Associates has developed a riparian habitat mitigation and monitoring plan
for the Project site. The commenter recommends that SM-BIO-16 be revised
to read "The Dublin Ranch West Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
(HTH, 2004) shall be implemented to compensate for the removal of riparian
vegetation, subject to the approval of the CDFG and City."
Response: On January 11, 2005, the ftp site provided by the commenter did
not indude a folder named Dublin West. If the HTH Riparian Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan contains the requirements described in SM-BIO-16, and is
approved by CDFG and the City, then it would meet the mitigation and
monitoring plan requirement of the mitigation measure.
· Comment 4.1.27: The sentence on page 47, "The portions of the Project area
has been used for cattle grazing," should be revised for darity and grammar
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 24
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
salamander has been listed as threatened and critical habitat has been
àesigl'lated proposed. ... All of the Project area to the west of Tassajara Creek
is within prnpnsed critical habitat Unit 18 of the Central Valley Region."
· Comment 4.1.33: On page 56, the document states that no larval surveys for
CTS have been conducted in Tassajara Creek within the Dublin Ranch West
area and that larval surveys conducted in this drainage by HTH were
downstream of this site. The commenter notes that such surveys were
conducted on the Project site in 1993,1995 and 2000. Since the creek is deep
with strong flows, CIS larval surveys were focused on habitat within the
Creek drainage that approached potential breeding habitat, which is an
isolated ox-bow.
Response: See responses to comments 4.1.10, and 4.1.36-.41 related to CTS.
· Comment 4.1.34: On page 60, state CEQA Guidelines were amended to add
the tenn "substantial" before the phrase "reduce the number or restrict the
range of an endangered, rare or threatened species for a mandatory finding
of significance.
Response: Based on the comment, the impact bullet on Page 60 is revised to
read as follows:
"Substantially-Rreduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered,
rare or threatened species;"
· Comment 4.1.35: On page 66, the document notes that CRLF populations in
Tassajara Creek are further isolated from potential breeding locations
northwest and southwest of the Dublin Ranch area. Because the primary
dispersal areas for CRLF and the drainage area to the west have been
enhanced by the TCMZ or could be enhanced, CRLF will not be isolated from
areas to the west due to loss of upland dispersal habitat that is likely
infrequently used by CRLF.
Response: It is the Oty's consulting biologist's opinion that enhancement of
occupied or potentially occupied habitat in the TCMZ and/ or drainage on the
northern edge of the site would not mitigate for the loss and fragmentation
of CRLF dispersal habitat.
· Comment 4.1.36: Studies completed by HTH determined that Tassajara
Creek itself is not potential breeding habitat for CTS. Therefore CTS larval
studies were focused only on habitat in the Creek that approached breeding
habitat, which is an existing ox-bow. No evidence of CIS breeding was found
in the ox-bow or elsewhere in Iassajara Creek.
Response: Current USFWS survey protocol typically includes both aquatic
sampling and pitfall trapping. Pitfall trapping was not conducted adjacent to
Tassajara Creek, so it has not been detennined whether or not CTS were
moving toward the stream. CTS were trapped at the southern end of the
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 26
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
traplines within approximately 300 feet of Tassajara Creek. It is possible that
CTS reproduced in small numbers in Tassajara Creek during previous
surveys and remained undetected.
According to the Dublin Ranch West Biotic Resources report (HTH 2002),
adult CTS went undetected during surveys conducted in 1993, 1996, 1998, and
2001. However, based on all evidence in existing literature, there is a very
low probability that CTS reproduce in Tassajara Creek, and we are dropping
our recommendation that CTS larval aquatic surveys of Tassajara Creek be
conducted.
. Comment 4.1.37: Based on flow studies completed by MacKay & Somps in
Tassajara Creek, CTS do not breed in the Creek.
Response: Observations of the Moller drainage in December 2002 made by the
City's consulting biologist during a stonn event indicated that this drainage
experiences high flows. The presence of CTS within ten meters of both banks
of the Moller drainage less than one mile upstream from its confluence with
Tassajara Creek suggests that CTS may breed following high flows. In some
dry years or after the high-flow season, suitable conditions may exist for
successful CTS breeding in the stream, however there is a very low
probability that CTS reproduce in Tassajara Creek, and the recommendation
that CTS larval aquatic surveys of Tassajara Creek be conducted has been
deleted.
. Comment 4.1.38: Based on infonnation contained in the DSEIR, HTH
Associates searched the California Natural Diversity Data Base for the
possibility of CTS breeding in Tassajara Creek. No record was found that
breeding occurred in a stream or natural drainage.
Response: The City's consulting biologists observed adult CTS along both
banks of the Moller tributary to Tassajara Creek in December 2002. The
nearest aquatic habitat was stock ponds approximately one mile north and
south of the stream. Based on this observation, it can be assumed that CTS
likely breed in the Moller drainage following high flows.
H.T. Harvey's assertion that CTS do not breed in stream or natural drainage
habitats, based on their review of CNDDB records for Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties, is partially lacking in scientific proof and objectivity. CNDDB
records represent a volunteer reporting of survey results that have been
conducted by numerous biologists over the course of many years, often
employing diverse survey techniques that mayor may not include surveys
for larvae and mayor may not have included surveys in "unsuitable"
drainage habitat. Records in the CNDDB provide inconsistent data on
location and habitat of the observed species and many lack a habitat
description altogether. Iruonnation mayor may not be available in these
records explaining what type of survey was conducted (nocturnal flashlight
survey, larval pitfall survey, funnel trap survey, incidental).
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 27
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Of the 258 records H.T. Harvey reviewed for Contra Costa and Alameda
Counties, 140 records documented evidence of breeding but only 29 of these
records specifically mentioned CTS breeding in natural ponds while 109
records recorded breeding in artificial ponds. None of the 140 records
indicated breeding occurred within streams or natural drainages, therefore
H.T Harvey concluded that breeding in this habitat does not occur. Based on
this type of reasoning, one could also conclude from this CNDDB data that
CTS prefer breeding in artificially constructed ponds rather than natural
occurring pond habitat.
Eighteen of the 258 CNDDB records from Alameda and Contra Costa
indicate observations of adult CTS in habitats in and adjacent to natural
drainage courses. There is no disputing that CTS are overwhelmingly
associated with seasonal pond habitats for breeding purposes. However,
there is simply not enough information about this species for consultants to
decide if adult CTS observed adjacent to drainage habitat will or will not
breed within such an environment. Despite the issue with using CNDDB
records as scientific evidence in this case, the conswtant biologist believes that
the existing survey results for this species in the project vicinity suggests
there is a very low probability that CTS reproduce in Tassajara Creek, and
the recommendation that CTS larval aquatic surveys of Tassajara Creek be
conducted is being deleted.
· Comment 4.1.39: Streams are not included as a primary constituent element
for CTS breeding based on the USFWS's" Designation of Critical Habitat for
the Califonùa Tiger Salamander."
Response: Streams could be considered "other ephemeral or permanent water
bodies that typically become inundated during winter rains and hold water
for a sufficient length of time necessary for the species to complete the
aquatic portion of its life cycle." However, recent evidence presented
suggests that there is a very low probability that CTS reproduce in Tassajara
Creek, and the DSEIR recommendation that CTS larval aquatic surveys of
Tassajara Creek be conducted is being deleted.
. Comment 4.1.40: Exotic species known to have a significant negative effect on
CTS by preying on eggs and larval salamanders include mosquitofish, bluegill
and crayfish. All are found in high numbers in Tassajara Creek adjacent to the
Project site.
Response: According to the Dublin Ranch Tassajara Creek Conservation
Habitat Management Plan (HTH 2003), there is a general lack of centrarchid
fishes, crayfish, and bullfrogs within the Tassajara Creek Management Zone.
· Comment 4.1.41: Mainstream literature regarding CTS described breeding
habitat as vernal pools, seasonal and perennial ponds and possibly quiet
pools of streams, but no studies have indicated that streams with high winter
flows such as Tassajara Creek provide suitable breeding habitat for CTS. The
comment provided a number of references.
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 28
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
Response: This comment is noted.
. Comment 4.1.42: The commenter believed that the high flows in Tassajara
Creek during the winter months and previous experience of the commenter,
that Tassajara Creek does not provide suitable breeding habitat for CTS.
Response: Based on the evidence presented, the City's biologist has concluded
that there is a very low probability that CTS reproduce in Tassajara Creek,
and the recommendation that CTS larval aquatic surveys of Tassajara Creek
be conducted is being deleted.
· Comment 4.1.43: The commenter notes that there are a few areas where
CRLF may exit the Project site from the Tassajara Creek riparian zone;
however, most of the western bank is a vertical wall of over 20 feet, making
it very difficult if not impossible for CRLF to access the Project site. Therefore,
CRLF could not readily exit from known areas of frog residence in the Creek
onto the Project site.
Response: See responses to Comments 4.1.47 and 4.48 dealing with CRLF
species.
· Comment 4.1.44: A recent study of habitat use by CRLF in coastal forest and
grassland suggests that an essential component is the presence of concealing
cover. This cover is necessary to protect frogs from desiccation and predation
during periods of inactivity. Although ground squirrel burrows may provide
some cover, the Project site lacks sufficient cover in the flat areas near
Tassajara Creek that would be necessary for the kinds of upland habitat use
and dispersal as described in the DSEIR. Dispersing frogs would therefore be
subject to desiccation and predation due to lack of cover.
Response: See response to comment 4.1.45.
· Comment 4.1.45: The study referenced in Comment 4.1.44 was conducted in
Santa Cruz County where the risk of desiccation to CRLF is not as great as
the East Bay. Based on personal experience with CRLF, the commenter has
found a markedly higher tendency toward upland dispersal in mesic coastal
areas than the dryer East Bay, such as the Project site.
Response: The commenter's opinion is noted.
· Comment 4.1.46: If CRLF were present in the upland dispersal habitat as
identified in the DSEIR, then individual frogs sfiould have been detected in
the trap array installed for the CTS along the western boundary of the Project
site during the 2003--04 winter season. This argument is strengthened by the
fact that 56 post-metamorphic frogs and 1,973 tadpoles were placed in
Tassajara Creek during the summer of 2003 and these should have been
intersected in the trap array when this became operational in October 2003.
The oruy amphibians found in the trap array were CTS, yellow-eyed
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 29
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
salamanders and Pacific treefrogs, even though a large number of frogs and
tadpoles were translocated oruy 350 feet from the trap array.
Response: It is not clear in the comment whether all 586 post-metamorphic
frogs and 1,973 larvae were released at one point 350 feet from the trap
array, or distributed throughout Tassajara Creek. Larvae probably
experience high mortality rates. Estimated larvae survival rates to
metamorphosis cited by the USFWS (2004) range from less than one percent
to five percent. Based on these estimates, rougJ:ùy 20 to 200 of the released
larvae would survive through metamorphosis. Depending on where the
release point(s) is located, it is unknown whether the released post-
metamorphic frogs and those larvae surviving to metamorphosis would
have encountered the trap array.
· Comment 4.1.47: The drainage on the northern edge of the site currently
provides a dispersal corridor for CRLF that llÚght disperse between Tassajara
Creek and areas to the west of the Project site, such as Parks RFTA. In fact,
CRLF are likely to use this drainage for dispersal far more than they would
use the upland portion of the Project site due to a gentler slope out of the
Tassajara Creek drainage, the presence of concealing cover within and near
the drainage north of the site, and moisture within the drainage.
Response: According to the USFWS, CRLF will make long-distance, straight-
line, point-to-point movements rather than using corridors for moving
between habitats. The USFWS also cites a study in Santa Cruz County where
dispersing adult frogs moved without apparent regard to topography,
vegetation type, or riparian corridors. This suggests that CRLF dispersing to
or from populations to the west may move through any portion of the Dublin
Ranch West site.
· Comment 4.1.48: In summary, the commenter expects CRLF in Tassajara
Creek to leave the drainage and disperse onto or across upland areas west of
the creek oruy on rare occasions, and the upland portions of the Project site
do not represent important habitat for these species. Even if egress were not
constrained by creek topography, adult CRLF would olÙY be expected to
leave the drainage for brief foraging bouts during the wet season and stay
within the buffer zone near the Creek. The commenter does not believe the
Project site is a migratory corridor between Tassajara Creek and known
CRLF sites further west. The dry nature of the upland area of the Project site,
the lack of concealing cover on the upland portion of the site, the high quality
of CRLF habitat along Tassajara Creek itself and the lack of captures of CRLF
dispersing across the upland by the CTS trapping array during the winter of
2003-04 lead to the conclusion that the proposed Project would not lead to a
significant impact to CRLF.
Response: The City's biologist agrees that juvenile CRLF disperse more widely
over upland areas than adults. Juveniles were observed in heavily grazed
grassland with minimal cover in the Eastern Dublin area in 2004, suggesting
that CRLF juveniles disperse even when cover is poor. Poor cover on the
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 30
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Ranch West site would not preclude CRLF from using it during
dispersa1. Also, although CRLF dispersing from Tassajara Creek to the west
may face restricted access to the Dublin Ranch West site, those dispersing
from the Camp Parks area to the east toward Tassajara Creek, and ultimately
upstream or downstream, would encounter less-challenging topography.
.-
DUblin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 31
February 2005